Speech reception by listeners with real and simulated hearing impairment: Effects of continuous and interrupted noise

Abstract

The effects of audibility and age on masking for sentences in continuous and interrupted noise were examined in listeners with real and simulated hearing loss. The absolute thresholds of each of ten listeners with sensorineural hearing loss were simulated in normal-hearing listeners through a combination of spectrally-shaped threshold noise and multi-band expansion for octave bands with center frequencies from 0.25-8 kHz. Each individual hearing loss was simulated in two groups of three normal-hearing listeners ͑an age-matched and a non-age-matched group͒. The speech-to-noise ratio ͑S/N͒ for 50%-correct identification of hearing in noise test ͑HINT͒ sentences was measured in backgrounds of continuous and temporally-modulated ͑10 Hz square-wave͒ noise at two overall levels for unprocessed speech and for speech that was amplified with the NAL-RP prescription. The S/N in both continuous and interrupted noise of the hearing-impaired listeners was relatively well-simulated in both groups of normal-hearing listeners. Thus, release from masking ͑the difference in S/N obtained in continuous versus interrupted noise͒ appears to be determined primarily by audibility. Minimal age effects were observed in this small sample. Observed values of masking release were compared to predictions derived from intelligibility curves generated using the extended speech intelligibility index ͑ESII͒ ͓Rhebergen et al. ͑2006͒. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 120, 3988-3997͔.

Consonant identification in noise using Hilbert-transform temporal fine-structure speech and recovered-envelope speech for listeners with normal and impaired hearing

“…One explanation derives from the effects of reduced audibility in HI listeners. As shown by Desloge et al (2010), it is as if the HI were NH listeners who experienced a background noise that raised their thresholds to those of the HI and consequently prevented them from "listening in the valleys" where the interference is relatively weak. The reduction in cochlear compression and decreased frequency selectivity that accompany sensorineural loss are another possible source of decreased MR (Moore et al, 1999;Oxenham and Kreft, 2014).…”

Consonant identification using temporal fine structure and recovered envelope cues

“…Understanding speech in noise, restaurants, or group situations continues to be problematic for hearing-aid users, in spite of research efforts. When the interference is temporally fluctuating, most normal-hearing (NH) individuals are able to achieve substantial gains in intelligibility while most HI listeners do not (e.g., Desloge et al, 2010). Recently, a number of investigators (e.g., Lorenzi et al, 2006Lorenzi et al, , 2009Hopkins and Moore, 2007;Hopkins et al, 2008) have shown that this may result from an inability of HI listeners to process the temporal fine structure (TFS), as opposed to the temporal envelopes (ENVs), of speech as well as NH listeners.…”

Level variations in speech: Effect on masking release in hearing-impaired listeners

“…Previous research (e.g., Bernstein and Grant, 2009;Oxenham and Simonson, 2009;Desloge et al, 2010) has shown a tendency for an increase in MR as SNR decreases and for MR to disappear at SNR >0 dB. To examine the role of the specific SNRs employed here on MR for the different types of speech processing, performance was measured on two of the HI listeners (HI-3 and HI-5) at several additional values of SNR.…”

“…In continuous noise, HI listeners typically require a higher speech-to-noise ratio (SNR) to achieve the same level of performance as NH listeners (e.g., Festen and Plomp, 1990). Furthermore, HI listeners do not show as great an improvement as NH listeners in fluctuating compared to continuous noise (Festen and Plomp, 1990;Moore et al, 1999;Bernstein and Grant, 2009;Desloge et al, 2010).…”

“…One source may be related in part to the elevated auditory thresholds of HI listeners which lead to lower audibility of speech (e.g., see Zurek and Delhorne;1987;Bacon et al, 1998;Desloge et al, 2010;Phatak and Grant, 2014) or to their reduced cochlear compression (Gregan et al, 2013). The role of SNR in the size of MR may be another contributing factor: MR has been shown to decrease with an increase in SNR and HI listeners typically require a higher SNR than NH listeners for equivalent levels of performance (Bernstein and Grant, 2009;Desloge et al, 2010). Another hypothesis regarding the ability to make use of speech information present in the gaps is concerned with the ability to use temporal finestructure (TFS) cues.…”