4.5 Article Proceedings Paper

An examination of speech recognition in a modulated background and of forward masking in younger and older listeners

Journal

JOURNAL OF SPEECH LANGUAGE AND HEARING RESEARCH
Volume 50, Issue 4, Pages 857-864

Publisher

AMER SPEECH-LANGUAGE-HEARING ASSOC
DOI: 10.1044/1092-4388(2007/060)

Keywords

forward masking; effects of age; modulated noise; speech recognition

Funding

  1. NIDCD NIH HHS [R01 DC001376, F31 DC005085-02, DC01376, F31 DC005085-01, F31 DC005085, DC005085] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: To compare speech intelligibility in the presence of a 10-Hz square-wave noise masker in younger and older listeners and to relate performance to recovery from forward masking. Method: The signal-to-noise ratio required to achieve 50% sentence identification in the presence of a 10-Hz square-wave noise masker was obtained for each of the 8 younger/older listener pairs. Listeners were matched according to their quiet thresholds for frequencies from 600 to 4800 Hz in octave steps. Forward masking was also measured in 2 younger/older threshold-matched groups for signal delays of 2-40 ms. Results: Older listeners typically required a significantly higher signal-to-noise ratio than younger listeners to achieve 50% correct sentence recognition. This effect may be understood in terms of increased forward-masked thresholds throughout the range of signal delays corresponding to the silent intervals in the modulated noise (e.g., < 50 ms). Conclusions: Significant differences were observed between older and younger listeners on measures of both speech intelligibility in a modulated background and forward masking over a range of signal delays (0-4O ms). Age-related susceptibility to forward masking at relatively short delays may reflect a deficit in processing at a fairly central level (e.g., broader temporal windows or less efficient processing).

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available