Age-related changes in within- and between-channel gap detection using sinusoidal stimuli

Abstract

Pure tone gap stimuli with identical (within-channel) or dissimilar (between-channel) marker frequencies of 1 and 2 kHz were presented to young and old listeners in a two-interval forced choice gap detection task. To estimate the influence of extraneous duration cues on gap detection, thresholds in the between-channel conditions were obtained for two different sets of reference stimuli: reference stimuli that were matched to the overall duration of the gap stimulus, i.e., two markers plus the gap, and reference stimuli that were fixed at the combined duration of the two markers excluding the gap. Results from within-channel conditions were consistent with previous studies, i.e., there were small but highly reliable age differences, smaller gap thresholds at longer marker durations, and an interaction between the two variables. In between-channel conditions, however, age differences were not as clear cut. Rather, the effect of age varied as a function of duration cue and was more pronounced when stimuli were matched for overall duration than when the duration of the reference tone was fixed.

Age-related changes in auditory temporal processing in the rat

“…The results of our study revealed that none of the analyzed temporal parameters (GDT, GDDL or MLR amplitude-rate function) in aged animals correlated with the hearing threshold shift. Although an increase of the GDT in subjects with hearing loss was reported in several studies [1,7,8,19], the GDT values and audiometric threshold shifts were not significantly correlated [4,5,60,61]. Similarly as GDT values, also individual GDDL values did not correlate with the hearing threshold in old rats.…”

Learning speech-in-noise discrimination in adult humans

“…Speech intelligibility in the presence of background noise (speech in noise; SIN) decreases especially as we age and/or hearing ability declines (Barrenäs and Wikström, 2000;Bergman, 1971;Dubno et al, 1984Dubno et al, , 1997Duquesnoy, 1983a, b;Duquesnoy and Plomp, 1980;Frisina and Frisina, 1997;Gelfund et al, 1988;Leshowitz, 1977;Pichora-Fuller et al, 1995;Sommers, 1997;van Rooij and Plomp, 1990;reviews by CHABA, 1988;Martin and Jerger, 2005). This decline involves factors specific to auditory processing with many studies showing the importance of age-and/or hearing loss-related changes in audibility, frequency resolution and temporal processing in influencing speech discrimination in background noise (e.g., Bergeson et al, 2001;Gordon-Salant and Fitzgibbons, 1993;Grose et al, 2001;Hall et al, 1995;Heinrich and Schneider, 2006;Lister et al, 2000Lister et al, , 2002Lister and Tarver, 2004;Pichora-Fuller et al 2006;Roberts and Lister, 2004;Schneider et al, 1998;Snell and Frisina 2000;Snell et al, 2002;van Rooij et al, 1989). However, age effects on understanding SIN can occur independent of hearing impairment and in such cases it is often speculated that cognitive factors may account for the decline in the ability to understand SIN (see, e.g., Gick et al, 1988;Humes, 1996;Pichora-Fuller, 2003;PichoraFuller et al, 1995;Sommers, 1997;Wingfield, 1996).…”

Untitled

“…This aspect of hearing is known as gap detection and it is potentially important for speech perception because small gaps or pauses in a continuous speech stream can indicate the presence of stop consonants. In a series of studies we have found that the effects of age (with older adults generally having higher thresholds than their younger counterparts) and stimulus complexity (gap detection thresholds increase with stimulus complexity) interact in such a way that the extent of age-related differences tended to increase linearly as the level of stimulus complexity increased (Heinrich, de la Rosa, & Schneider, 2014;Heinrich & Schneider, 2006;Pichora-Fuller, Schneider, Benson, Hamstra, & Storzer, 2006). Such a result suggests that it might be difficult to extrapolate from the extent of an age difference using simpler stimuli to the extent of age differences using more complex stimuli.…”