This study investigated the interaction between hearing loss, reverberation, and age on the benefit of spatially separating multiple masking talkers from a target talker. Four listener groups were tested based on hearing status and age. On every trial listeners heard three different sentences spoken simultaneously by different female talkers. Listeners reported keywords from the target sentence, which was presented at a fixed and known location. Maskers were colocated with the target or presented from spatially separated and symmetrically placed loudspeakers, creating a situation with no simple "better-ear." Reverberation was also varied. The target-to-masker ratio at threshold for identification of the fixed-level target was measured by adapting the level of the maskers. On average, listeners with hearing loss showed less spatial release from masking than normal-hearing listeners. Age was a significant factor although small differences in hearing sensitivity across age groups may have contributed to this effect. Spatial release was reduced in the more reverberant room condition but in most cases a significant advantage remained. These results provide evidence for a large benefit of spatial separation in a multitalker situation that is likely due to perceptual factors. However, this benefit is significantly reduced by both hearing loss and reverberation.

Spatial release from masking was studied in a three-talker soundfield listening experiment. The target talker was presented at 0 degrees azimuth and the maskers were either colocated or symmetrically positioned around the target, with a different masker talker on each side. The symmetric placement greatly reduced any "better ear" listening advantage. When the maskers were separated from the target by +/-15 degrees , the average spatial release from masking was 8 dB. Wider separations increased the release to more than 12 dB. This large effect was eliminated when binaural cues and perceived spatial separation were degraded by covering one ear with an earplug and earmuff. Increasing reverberation in the room increased the target-to-masker ratio (TM) for the separated, but not colocated, conditions reducing the release from masking, although a significant advantage of spatial separation remained. Time reversing the masker speech improved performance in both the colocated and spatially separated cases but lowered TM the most for the colocated condition, also resulting in a reduction in the spatial release from masking. Overall, the spatial tuning observed appears to depend on the presence of interaural differences that improve the perceptual segregation of sources and facilitate the focus of attention at a point in space.

Objective Hearing impairment is highly prevalent, but little is known about hearing health care among older minority adults. Method We analyzed nationally representative, cross-sectional data from 1,544 older adults ≥70 years with audiometry and hearing care data from the 2005-2006 and 2009-2010 National Health and Nutritional Examination Surveys. Results After adjusting for age and speech frequency pure tone average, Blacks (odds ratio [OR] = 1.68, vs. Whites) and those with greater education (OR = 1.63, ≥college vs.

Perceptual skills can be improved even in adulthood, but this learning seldom occurs by stimulus exposure alone. Instead, it requires considerable practice performing a perceptual task with relevant stimuli. It is thought that task performance permits the stimuli to drive learning. A corresponding assumption is that the same stimuli do not contribute to improvement when encountered separately from relevant task performance because of the absence of this permissive signal. However, these ideas are based on only two types of studies, in which the task was either always performed or not performed at all. Here we demonstrate enhanced perceptual learning on an auditory frequency-discrimination task in human listeners when practice on that target task was combined with additional stimulation. Learning was enhanced regardless of whether the periods of additional stimulation were interleaved with or provided exclusively before or after target-task performance, and even though that stimulation occurred during the performance of an irrelevant (auditory or written) task. The additional exposures were only beneficial when they shared the same frequency with, though they did not need to be identical to, those used during target-task performance. Their effectiveness also was diminished when they were presented 15 minutes after practice on the target task and was eliminated when that separation was increased to 4 hours. These data show that exposure to an acoustic stimulus can facilitate learning when encountered outside of the time of practice on a perceptual task. By properly utilizing additional stimulation one may markedly improve the efficiency of perceptual training regimens.

This study examines individual differences in producing the sibilant contrast in American English and the relation of those differences to 2 speaker characteristics: (a) use of a quantal biomechanical effect (called a "saturation effect") in producing the sibilants and (b) performance on a test of sibilant discrimination. Twenty participants produced the sibilants /s/ and /S/ in normal-, clear-, and fast-speaking conditions. The degree to which the participants used a saturation effect in producing /s/ and /S/ was assessed with a custom-made sensor that measured contact of the underside of the tongue tip with the lower alveolar ridge; such contact normally occurs during the production of /s/ but not /S/. The acuteness of the participants' discrimination of the sibilant contrast was measured using the ABX paradigm and synthesized sibilants. Differences among speakers in the degree of acoustic contrast between /s/ and /S/ that they produced proved related to differences among them in their use of contact contrastively and in their discriminative performance. The most distinct sibilant productions were obtained from participants who used contact in producing /s/ but not /S/ and who had high discrimination scores. The participants who did not use contact differentially when producing the 2 sibilants and who also discriminated the synthetic sibilants less well produced the least distinct sibilant contrasts. Intermediate degrees of sibilant contrast were found with participants who used contact differentially or discriminated well. These findings are compatible with a model of speech motor planning in which goals for phonemic speech movements are in somatosensory and auditory spaces.

The HEARS (Hearing Equality through Accessible Research & Solutions) intervention is feasible, acceptable, low risk, and demonstrates preliminary efficacy. HEARS offers a novel, low-cost, and readily scalable solution to reduce hearing care disparities and highlights how a community-engaged approach to intervention development can address disparities.

This study tested the hypothesis that the reduction in spatial release from masking (SRM) resulting from sensorineural hearing loss in competing speech mixtures is influenced by the characteristics of the interfering speech. A frontal speech target was presented simultaneously with two intelligible or two time-reversed (unintelligible) speech maskers that were either colocated with the target or were symmetrically separated from the target in the horizontal plane. The difference in SRM between listeners with hearing impairment and listeners with normal hearing was substantially larger for the forward maskers (deficit of 5.8 dB) than for the reversed maskers (deficit of 1.6 dB). This was driven by the fact that all listeners, regardless of hearing abilities, performed similarly (and poorly) in the colocated condition with intelligible maskers. The same conditions were then tested in listeners with normal hearing using headphone stimuli that were degraded by noise vocoding. Reducing the number of available spectral channels systematically reduced the measured SRM, and again, more so for forward (reduction of 3.8 dB) than for reversed speech maskers (reduction of 1.8 dB). The results suggest that non-spatial factors can strongly influence both the magnitude of SRM and the apparent deficit in SRM for listeners with impaired hearing.

As international research studies become more commonplace, the importance of developing multilingual research instruments continues to increase and with it that of translated materials. It is therefore not unexpected that assessing the quality of translated materials (e.g., research instruments, questionnaires, etc.) has become essential to cross-cultural research, given that the reliability and validity of the research findings crucially depend on the translated instruments. In some fields (e.g., public health and medicine), the quality of translated instruments can also impact the effectiveness and success of interventions and public campaigns. Back-translation (BT) is a commonly used quality assessment tool in cross-cultural research. This quality assurance technique consists of (a) translation (target text [TT]) of the source text (ST), (b) translation (TT) of TT back into the source language, and (c) comparison of TT with ST to make sure there are no discrepancies. The accuracy of the BT with respect to the source is supposed to reflect equivalence/accuracy of the TT. This article shows how the use of BT as a translation quality assessment method can have a detrimental effect on a research study and proposes alternatives to BT. One alternative is illustrated on the basis of the translation and quality assessment methods used in a research study on hearing loss carried out in a border community in the southwest of the United States.