4.5 Article

Age-related changes in auditory temporal processing assessed using forward masking

期刊

HEARING RESEARCH
卷 427, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.heares.2022.108665

关键词

Hearing; Temporal processing; Aging; Forward masking

向作者/读者索取更多资源

One of the main complaints of older adults is difficulty understanding speech in noise, which may partly reflect deficits in temporal processing. This study evaluated the effect of age on the rate of recovery from forward masking and found that older adults with normal audiometric thresholds had lower processing efficiency and poorer temporal resolution compared to young adults.
One of the main complaints of older adults is difficulty understanding speech in noise. For older adults with audiometric thresholds within the normal range this difficulty may partly reflect deficits in temporal processing. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of age on the rate of recovery from forward masking. There were seven young participants (four females; mean age 26 years) and seven older participants (six females; mean age 62 years) with normal audiometric thresholds, designated YNH and ONH groups. Signal frequencies of 50 0, 10 0 0, 20 0 0, and 40 0 0 Hz were used. The level of the 20 -ms signal was fixed at 15 dB SL for each participant and frequency. The 20 0-ms masker was a band of noise centered at the signal frequency with a bandwidth equal to the center frequency. The masker level was varied to determine the masker-to-signal ratio (MSR) required for threshold for masker-signal intervals (MSIs) of 5, 10, 20, 30, and 50 ms. The MSRs were smaller for the ONH group than for the YNH group, perhaps indicating lower processing efficiency for the former. Importantly, there was a significant interaction between MSI and the group. The change in MSR with increasing MSI was greater for the YNH than for the ONH group, indicating poorer temporal resolution for the latter. (c) 2022 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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