Relations between frequency selectivity, temporal fine-structure processing, and speech reception in impaired hearing

Abstract

Frequency selectivity, temporal fine-structure (TFS) processing, and speech reception were assessed for six normal-hearing (NH) listeners, ten sensorineurally hearing-impaired (HI) listeners with similar high-frequency losses, and two listeners with an obscure dysfunction (OD). TFS processing was investigated at low frequencies in regions of normal hearing, through measurements of binaural masked detection, tone lateralization, and monaural frequency modulation (FM) detection. Lateralization and FM detection thresholds were measured in quiet and in background noise. Speech reception thresholds were obtained for full-spectrum and lowpass-filtered sentences with different interferers. Both the HI listeners and the OD listeners showed poorer performance than the NH listeners in terms of frequency selectivity, TFS processing, and speech reception. While a correlation was observed between the monaural and binaural TFS-processing deficits in the HI listeners, no relation was found between TFS processing and frequency selectivity. The effect of noise on TFS processing was not larger for the HI listeners than for the NH listeners. Finally, TFS-processing performance was correlated with speech reception in a two-talker background and lateralized noise, but not in amplitude-modulated noise. The results provide constraints for future models of impaired auditory signal processing.

Interindividual Variation of Sensitivity to Frequency Modulation: Its Relation with Click-Evoked and Distortion Product Otoacoustic Emissions

“…1). This tendency is consistent with previous studies (e.g., Strelcyk and Dau 2009;Moore and Sek 1996). DPOAEs were lowest at lower frequencies and reached a maximum around 1 kHz and gradually decreased with increasing frequency above 1 kHz (Fig.…”

“…This interpretation is consistent with earlier findings that hearing-impaired listeners, who tend to show decreased DPOAE levels (e.g., Dorn et al 1999), exhibit deficits in FM detection tasks (Lacher-Fougere and Demany 1998;Moore and Skrodzka 2002;Strelcyk and Dau 2009). This interpretation, however, might appear to be inconsistent with the present study and the study of hearingimpaired listeners published by Strelcyk and Dau (2009), which showed no significant correlation between FMDLs and hearing level. Several studies reported a correlation between hearing level and DPOAE level (e.g., Dorn et al 1999).…”

“…If the excitation pattern cue significantly contributes to lowrate FM detection, the functionality of cochlear mechanics underlying the excitation pattern should be reflected in the low-rate FMDLs. However, Strelcyk and Dau (2009) reported no significant correlation between low-rate FMDLs and psychophysical indicators of cochlear mechanics, such as audibility and frequency selectivity, in hearing-impaired listeners.…”

“…Given this assumption, the low-rate FM detection limen (FMDL) has been used to assess the ability to use phase locking information (Strelcyk and Dau 2009;Ruggles et al 2011;Grose and Mamo 2012).…”

Envelope Coding in Auditory Nerve Fibers Following Noise-Induced Hearing Loss

“…Recent perceptual studies focused on temporal coding have suggested that envelope cues are most salient for understanding speech in quiet (Shannon et al 1995) and fine-structure cues are most important for speech in noise (Qin and Oxenham 2003;Zeng et al 2005). Listeners with SNHL appear to have reduced ability to use fine-structure cues for both speech and non-speech stimuli (Buss et al 2004;Lorenzi et al 2006;Hopkins and Moore 2007), and this deficit does not depend on reduced frequency selectivity (Lorenzi et al 2009;Strelcyk and Dau 2009). In contrast, envelope coding is generally believed to be unaffected by SNHL.…”