| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
spb{at}asu.edu
Speech recognition was measured in three groups of listeners: those with sensorineural hearing loss of (presumably) cochlear origin (HL), those with normal hearing (NH), and those with normal hearing who listened in the presence of a spectrally shaped noise that elevated their pure-tone thresholds to match those of individual listeners in the HL group (NM). Performance was measured in four backgrounds that differed only in their temporal envelope: steady-state (SS) speech-shaped noise, speech-shaped noise modulated by the envelope of multi-talker babble (MT), speech-shaped noise modulated by the envelope of single-talker speech (ST), and speech-shaped noise modulated by a 10-Hz square wave (SQ). Threshold signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs) were typically best in the ST and especially the SQ conditions, indicating a masking release in those modulated backgrounds. SNRs in the SS and MT conditions were essentially identical to one another. The masking release was largest in the listeners in the NH group, and it tended to decrease as hearing loss increased. In 5 of the 11 listeners in the HL group, the masking release was nearly identical to that obtained in the NM group matched to those listeners; in the other 6 listeners, the release was smaller than that in the NM group. The reduced masking release was simulated best in those HL listeners for whom the masking release was relatively large. These results suggest that reduced masking release for speech in listeners with sensorineural hearing loss can only sometimes be accounted for entirely by reduced audibility.
KEY WORDS: speech recognition, masking release, hearing loss, reduced audibility, temporal resolution
Submitted on July 21, 1997
Accepted on January 14, 1998
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us 
Digg 
Facebook 
Reddit 
Technorati 
Twitter What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  B. C. J. Moore The Choice of Compression Speed in Hearing Aids: Theoretical and Practical Considerations and the Role of Individual Differences Trends in Amplification, June 1, 2008; 12(2): 103 - 112. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 R. H. Gifford, S. P. Bacon, and E. J. Williams An Examination of Speech Recognition in a Modulated Background and of Forward Masking in Younger and Older Listeners J Speech Lang Hear Res, August 1, 2007; 50(4): 857 - 864. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J. C. Ziegler, C. Pech-Georgel, F. George, F.-X. Alario, and C. Lorenzi Deficits in speech perception predict language learning impairment PNAS, September 27, 2005; 102(39): 14110 - 14115. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
F.-G. Zeng, K. Nie, G. S. Stickney, Y.-Y. Kong, M. Vongphoe, A. Bhargave, C. Wei, and K. Cao Speech recognition with amplitude and frequency modulations PNAS, February 15, 2005; 102(7): 2293 - 2298. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| All ASHA Journals | AJA | AJSLP | JSLHR | LSHSS |
