4.5 Article

Informational masking in young and elderly listeners for speech masked by simultaneous speech and noise

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE ACOUSTICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA
卷 126, 期 4, 页码 1926-1940

出版社

ACOUSTICAL SOC AMER AMER INST PHYSICS
DOI: 10.1121/1.3205403

关键词

-

资金

  1. Medical Research Council
  2. Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government
  3. MRC [MC_U135079244] Funding Source: UKRI
  4. Chief Scientist Office [IHR] Funding Source: researchfish
  5. Medical Research Council [MC_U135079244] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Three experiments measured the effects of age on informational masking of speech by competing speech. The experiments were designed to minimize the energetic contributions of the competing speech so that informational masking could be measured with no large corrections for energetic masking. Experiment 1 used a speech-in-speech-in-noise design, in Which the competing speech was presented in noise at a signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of -4 dB. This ensured that the noise primarily contributed the energetic masking but the competing speech contributed the informational masking. Equal amounts of informational masking (3 dB) were observed for young and elderly listeners, although less was found for hearing-impaired listeners. Experiment 2 tested a range of SNRs in this design and showed that informational masking increased with SNR up to about an SNR of -4 dB, but decreased thereafter. Experiment 3 further reduced the energetic contribution of the competing speech by filtering it into different frequency bands from the target speech. The elderly listeners again showed approximately the same amount of informational masking (4-5 dB), although some elderly listeners had particular difficulty understanding these stimuli in any condition. On the whole, these results suggest that young and elderly listeners were equally susceptible to informational masking. (C) 2009 Acoustical Society of America. [DOI: 10.1121/1.3205403]

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据