Temporal Analysis and Stimulus Fluctuation in Listeners With Normal and Impaired Hearing

Abstract

The first experiment investigated the effects of mild to moderate sensorineural hearing impairment on temporal analysis for noise stimuli of varying bandwidth. Tasks of temporal gap detection, amplitude modulation (AM) detection, and AM discrimination were examined. Relatively high levels of stimulation were used in order to reduce the possibility that the results of the listeners with hearing impairment would be influenced strongly by audibility. A general summary of results was that there was relatively great interlistener variation among the listeners with hearing impairment, with most listeners showing normal performance and some showing degraded performance, regardless of the bandwidth of the stimulus carrying the temporal information. A second experiment investigated the hypothesis that listeners with sensorineural hearing impairment might have poor gap detection due to loudness recruitment. Here, gap markers were presented at levels where loudness growth was steeper for the listeners with hearing impairment than for the listeners with normal hearing. Although gap detection was sometimes poorer in listeners with hearing impairment than in listeners with normal hearing, there was no clear relation between gap detection performance and loudness recruitment in listeners with mild to moderate sensorineural hearing impairment.

Conductive Hearing Loss Disrupts Synaptic and Spike Adaptation in Developing Auditory Cortex

“…It has been suggested that increased thresholds during development may compromise central auditory processing skills long after the threshold returns to normal. It may impair the ability to locate sounds and detect weak signals in noise (Hall and Grose, 1994;Wilmington et al, 1994;Hall et al, 1995Hall et al, , 1998Hogan et al, 1996). CHL has also been implicated in the development of speech and language acquisition (Reichman and Healey, 1983;Bennett and Furukawa, 1984;Schlieper et al, 1985;Teele et al, 1990;Schonweiler et al, 1998;Mody et al, 1999;Psillas et al, 2006).…”

Review Article: Review of the Literature on Temporal Resolution in Listeners With Cochlear Hearing Impairment: A Critical Assessment of the Role of Suprathreshold Deficits

“…Hall, Grose, Buss, and Hatch (1998) examined gap detection as a function of the bandwidth of bandpass noise in a group of 25 NH subjects (mean age of 30 years) and a group of 21 HI subjects (mean age of 49 years) with a wide variety of audiometric configurations and degrees of hearing loss. The center frequency of the bandpass noise (whose bandwidth was 50, 400, or 1000 Hz) took on values in the region of 1000 to 3000 Hz selected on an individual basis for the HI listeners depending on audiometric threshold.…”

The Influence of Hearing Aid Gain on Gap-Detection Thresholds for Children and Adults With Hearing Loss

“…71%–is obtained, referred to here as gap-duration threshold. Most studies to date compared gap detection for listeners with SNHL and NH at equal sensation level (SL; Horwitz et al 2011), sound-pressure level (SPL; Florentine & Buus 1984; Hall et al 1998; Irwin et al 1981), or both (Glasberg et al 1987; Glasberg & Moore 1989). Few studies have determined the extent to which hearing-aid amplification applied to the stimulus can improve gap-detection thresholds (Glasberg & Moore, 1992; Moore et al 2001), and studies to date have not examined the impact of childhood SNHL on the ability to perceive a gap in noise.…”

“…For listeners with NH, gap-duration thresholds are reduced (improved) as the stimulus SL is increased up to approximately 30 dB SL (Davis & McCroskey 1980; Florentine & Buus 1984; Horwitz et al 2011; Plomp 1964; Zeng et al 2005). Thresholds also improve as the bandwidth of the stimulus is increased (Eddins et al 1992; Fitzgibbons 1983; Glasberg & Moore 1992; Hall et al 1998), and in some cases, as the stimulus bandwidth and center frequency are increased simultaneously (Moore & Glasberg 1988; Shailer & Moore 1983). When listeners with NH and listeners with SNHL are tested at the same SPL, the reduction in audibility associated with SNHL can result in poorer gap detection (Florentine & Buus, 1984; Glasberg et al 1987; Glasberg & Moore 1989; Grose et al 1989; Irwin et al 1981; Moore & Glasberg 1988).…”