Masked Speech Recognition in School-Age Children

Leibold, Lori J.; Buss, Emily

doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01981

Cited by 67 publications

(40 citation statements)

References 77 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, in speech intelligibility tasks, when the interfering sound is (non-speech) noise, children achieve adult-like performance by the age of 9-10 years. However, when the interfering sound is speech, there is a prolonged developmental trajectory, with adult-like performance not reached until adolescence [15]. Although older adults generally have greater difficulty in understanding masked speech than younger adults, competing talkers seem to be particularly detrimental for older listeners as well [16][17][18].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Speech modifications in interactive speech: effects of age, sex and noise type

Tuomainen

Taschenberger

Rosen

et al. 2021

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When attempting to maintain conversations in noisy communicative settings, talkers typically modify their speech to make themselves understood by the listener. In this study, we investigated the impact of background interference type and talker age on speech adaptations, vocal effort and communicative success. We measured speech acoustics (articulation rate, mid-frequency energy, fundamental frequency), vocal effort (correlation between mid-frequency energy and fundamental frequency) and task completion time in 114 participants aged 8–80 years carrying out an interactive problem-solving task in good and noisy listening conditions (quiet, non-speech noise, background speech). We found greater changes in fundamental frequency and mid-frequency energy in non-speech noise than in background speech and similar reductions in articulation rate in both. However, older participants (50+ years) increased vocal effort in both background interference types, whereas younger children (less than 13 years) increased vocal effort only in background speech. The presence of background interference did not lead to longer task completion times. These results suggest that when the background interference involves a higher cognitive load, as in the case of other speech of other talkers, children and older talkers need to exert more vocal effort to ensure successful communication. We discuss these findings within the communication effort framework. This article is part of the theme issue ‘Voice modulation: from origin and mechanism to social impact (Part II)’.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Speech modifications in interactive speech: effects of age, sex and noise type

Tuomainen

Taschenberger

Rosen

et al. 2021

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…One potential mechanism that explains the link between cognitive and linguistic skills and listening in noise and reverberation is related to children's increased susceptibility to informational masking (Brungart et al, 2001; see Leibold and Buss, 2019 for a review). Reverberation is a particularly challenging masking signal because the reverberant signal can cause energetic masking, where the energy of the reverberant signal overlaps with the target signal in the auditory system.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Auditory, Cognitive, and Linguistic Factors Predict Speech Recognition in Adverse Listening Conditions for Children With Hearing Loss

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: Children with hearing loss listen and learn in environments with noise and reverberation, but perform more poorly in noise and reverberation than children with normal hearing. Even with amplification, individual differences in speech recognition are observed among children with hearing loss. Few studies have examined the factors that support speech understanding in noise and reverberation for this population. This study applied the theoretical framework of the Ease of Language Understanding (ELU) model to examine the influence of auditory, cognitive, and linguistic factors on speech recognition in noise and reverberation for children with hearing loss.Design: Fifty-six children with hearing loss and 50 age-matched children with normal hearing who were 7-10 years-old participated in this study. Aided sentence recognition was measured using an adaptive procedure to determine the signal-to-noise ratio for 50% correct (SNR50) recognition in steady-state speech-shaped noise. SNR50 was also measured with noise plus a simulation of 600 ms reverberation time. Receptive vocabulary, auditory attention, and visuospatial working memory were measured. Aided speech audibility indexed by the Speech Intelligibility Index was measured through the hearing aids of children with hearing loss.Results: Children with hearing loss had poorer aided speech recognition in noise and reverberation than children with typical hearing. Children with higher receptive vocabulary and working memory skills had better speech recognition in noise and noise plus reverberation than peers with poorer skills in these domains. Children with hearing loss with higher aided audibility had better speech recognition in noise and reverberation than peers with poorer audibility. Better audibility was also associated with stronger language skills.Conclusions: Children with hearing loss are at considerable risk for poor speech understanding in noise and in conditions with noise and reverberation. Consistent with the predictions of the ELU model, children with stronger vocabulary and working memory abilities performed better than peers with poorer skills in these domains. Better McCreery et al. Speech Recognition in Adverse Conditions aided speech audibility was associated with better recognition in noise and noise plus reverberation conditions for children with hearing loss. Speech audibility had direct effects on speech recognition in noise and reverberation and cumulative effects on speech recognition in noise through a positive association with language development over time.

show abstract

“…It is important to note that the stimuli used during the task, and similarity between targets and interferers play an important role in determining the effect sizes and differences between children and adults (see Litovsky et al, 2017, for a review). A recent review suggests that there are numerous factors, both peripheral and central, that may impact age-related changes in the ability to identify and understand target speech in noise (Leibold & Buss, 2019). For example, Buss et al (2016) showed that release from masking in children with NH as young as 5 years of age is impacted by the fact that children use context less than adults, rendering top-down repair or restoration of target speech less beneficial.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Auditory Attention and Spatial Unmasking in Children With Cochlear Implants

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The ability to attend to target speech in background noise is an important skill, particularly for children who spend many hours in noisy environments. Intelligibility improves as a result of spatial or binaural unmasking in the free-field for normal-hearing children; however, children who use bilateral cochlear implants (BiCIs) demonstrate little benefit in similar situations. It was hypothesized that poor auditory attention abilities might explain the lack of unmasking observed in children with BiCIs. Target and interferer speech stimuli were presented to either or both ears of BiCI participants via their clinical processors. Speech reception thresholds remained low when the target and interferer were in opposite ears, but they did not show binaural unmasking when the interferer was presented to both ears and the target only to one ear. These results demonstrate that, in the most extreme cases of stimulus separation, children with BiCIs can ignore an interferer and attend to target speech, but there is weak or absent binaural unmasking. It appears that children with BiCIs mostly experience poor encoding of binaural cues rather than deficits in ability to selectively attend to target speech.

show abstract

Masked Speech Recognition in School-Age Children

Cited by 67 publications

References 77 publications

Speech modifications in interactive speech: effects of age, sex and noise type

Speech modifications in interactive speech: effects of age, sex and noise type

Auditory, Cognitive, and Linguistic Factors Predict Speech Recognition in Adverse Listening Conditions for Children With Hearing Loss

Auditory Attention and Spatial Unmasking in Children With Cochlear Implants

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About