Effects of Age and Hearing Loss on the ... - Rush University

More documents

Recommendations

Info

10 SHEFT ET AL. / EAR & HEARING, VOL. 00, NO. 00, 000–000 with average audiometric thresholds <strong>and</strong> age ranges <strong>of</strong> HI participants roughly coinciding with those <strong>of</strong> the older HI subject group <strong>of</strong> the present work. Between the younger NH <strong>and</strong> older HI listeners, the average SRT increased by 7.9 dB in the study <strong>of</strong> Wilson et al. as compared with the 5.25 change in SNR <strong>Loss</strong> in the present work. Along with its effect on SNR <strong>Loss</strong>, hearing loss was associated with a shallower slope <strong>of</strong> the speech-intelligibility function. At the 50% correct point, both younger <strong>and</strong> older NH listeners showed a mean slope <strong>of</strong> approximately 14% per dB <strong>of</strong> SNR, whereas the mean slope for the older HI participants was 10% per dB. This difference in slope agrees well with the 6.1% per dB difference reported by Wilson et al. (2007) between comparable subject groups. In general, a decrease in the psychometricfunction slope indicates an increase in processing variance from either noise or distortion. Plomp (1978) argued that hearing impairment shows combined effects <strong>of</strong> attenuation <strong>and</strong> distortion. As with speech perception, distortion in auditory processing would impair the ability to discriminate FM stimuli. Results showed that the effect <strong>of</strong> hearing loss was not significant in the FM measures obtained from the older participants, suggesting that possible distortion associated with hearing loss was not a factor affecting psychoacoustic results from these listeners. It thus seems that possible involvement <strong>of</strong> distortion in the Quick- SIN results <strong>of</strong> the older HI listeners does not reflect a change in the overall processing ability <strong>of</strong> low-rate stochastic FM. Results showed a significant correlation between performance in the SNR FM condition <strong>and</strong> masked speech perception as measured by QuickSIN SNR <strong>Loss</strong>. For young-to-middleaged listeners who varied in degrees <strong>of</strong> hearing loss, Buss et al. (2004) reported significant correlations between speech perception <strong>and</strong> measures <strong>of</strong> 2-Hz FM detection. For a subject group composed <strong>of</strong> primarily older HI listeners, Strelcyk <strong>and</strong> Dau (2009) found that speech reception in the presence <strong>of</strong> a two-talker babble masker was significantly correlated with 2-Hz FM detection in which low-rate amplitude modulation was also imposed on the stimulus carrier. Working with both young <strong>and</strong> older NH <strong>and</strong> HI listeners, Hopkins <strong>and</strong> Moore (2011) found a significant relationship between SRTs in modulated noise <strong>and</strong> the ability to discriminate between complex tones that differed only in terms <strong>of</strong> temporal fine structure but not envelope. The relationship between speech perception <strong>and</strong> temporal fine-structure processing has also been evaluated in studies that measured the intelligibility <strong>of</strong> speech stimuli processed to control fine-structure cues. Lorenzi et al. (2006), Hopkins et al. (2008), <strong>and</strong> Ardoint et al. (2010) showed that the ability to use the temporal fine-structure cues <strong>of</strong> speech was reduced or abolished in most listeners with a mild-to-moderate cochlear hearing loss irrespective <strong>of</strong> age, although younger listeners tended to show better ability to use these cues than did older listeners. HI listeners showing best speech intelligibility in a nonstationary noise background also showed residual ability to use temporal fine-structure speech cues (Lorenzi et al. 2006). Individual differences in this residual ability accounted for approximately 70% <strong>of</strong> the variance in speech-intelligibility scores in fluctuating noise. If the contribution <strong>of</strong> temporal fine-structure cues to speech perception is most evident in masking conditions, present results suggest that the difficulty experienced by older listeners with speech-in-noise processing may in part relate to diminished ability to process slower finestructure modulation at low SNRs. In summary, results indicate that measures <strong>of</strong> stochastic FM processing show effects <strong>of</strong> listener age. Among older listeners with up to a moderate hearing loss, the degree <strong>of</strong> loss did not significantly affect performance. Furthermore, the relationship between the QuickSIN performance <strong>and</strong> the SNR FM thresholds suggests that an FM-processing deficit may hinder speechin-noise intelligibility. Most hearing aids include some form <strong>of</strong> amplitude compression to restrict dynamic range. The analysis by Sheft et al. (2008) conducted with vocoded speech signals demonstrated that any alteration in the fidelity <strong>of</strong> temporal–envelope transmission also affects the fidelity <strong>of</strong> temporal fine-structure transmission. This suggests strongly that though hearing-aid compression is set by temporal–envelope values, it affects the fidelity <strong>of</strong> transmission <strong>of</strong> the temporal fine-structure cues <strong>of</strong> speech. Correlations obtained in the present study indicate that evaluation <strong>of</strong> hearing-aid compression algorithms needs to consider impact on the FM <strong>of</strong> speech. Present work is developing a clinically feasible approach for assessment <strong>of</strong> the SNR measure <strong>of</strong> stochastic FM processing. In addition to <strong>of</strong>fering a fuller picture <strong>of</strong> the auditory difficulties experienced in an adverse noisy environment, the procedure will potentially help in determining appropriate settings for prosthetic devices <strong>and</strong> in monitoring rehabilitation progress. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors thank Erica Hegl<strong>and</strong> for her assistance with data collection. This work was supported by the National Organization For <strong>Hearing</strong> Research Foundation <strong>and</strong> National Institutes <strong>of</strong> Health-National Institute on Deafness <strong>and</strong> Other Communication Disorders (R15 DC011916 <strong>and</strong> R03 DC008676). The content is solely the responsibility <strong>of</strong> the authors <strong>and</strong> does not necessarily represent the <strong>of</strong>ficial views <strong>of</strong> the National Institute on Deafness <strong>and</strong> Other Communication Disorders or <strong>of</strong> the National Institutes <strong>of</strong> Health. The authors have no conflicts <strong>of</strong> interest to disclose. Address for correspondence: Stanley Sheft, Communication Disorders <strong>and</strong> Sciences, Rush University Medical Center, 1015 AAC, 600 S. Paulina Street, Chicago, IL 60612, USA. E-mail: stanley_sheft@rush.edu Received March 20, 2011; accepted April 11, 2012. REFERENCES ANSI. (2004). Specifications for Audiometers (ANSI S3.6-2004). New York, NY: ANSI. Anstis, S., & Saida, S. (1985). Adaptation to auditory streaming <strong>of</strong> frequency-modulated tones. J Exp Psych Human Percept Perf, 11, 257–271. Ardoint, M., Sheft, S., Fleuriot, P., et al. (2010). Perception <strong>of</strong> temporal finestructure cues in speech with minimal envelope cues for listeners with mild-to-moderate hearing loss. Int J Audiol, 49, 823–831. Binns, C., & Culling, J. F. (2007). The role <strong>of</strong> fundamental frequency contours in the perception <strong>of</strong> speech against interfering speech. J Acoust Soc Am, 122, 1765–1776. Bregman, A. (1990). Auditory Scene Analysis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Buss, E., Hall, J. W., III, Grose, J. H. (2004). Temporal fine-structure cues to speech <strong>and</strong> pure tone modulation in observers with sensorineural hearing loss. Ear Hear, 25, 242–250. CHABA. (1988). Speech underst<strong>and</strong>ing <strong>and</strong> aging. J Acoust Soc Am, 83, 859–895. Clinard, C. G., Tremblay, K. L., Krishnan, A. R. (2010). Aging alters the perception <strong>and</strong> physiological representation <strong>of</strong> frequency: Evidence from human frequency-following response recordings. Hear Res, 264, 48–55. Collins, L. M., Wakefield, G. H., Feinman, G. R. (1994). Temporal pattern discrimination <strong>and</strong> speech recognition under electrical stimulation. J Acoust Soc Am, 96(5 Pt 1), 2731–2737. Copyright © Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction <strong>of</strong> this article is prohibited.
SHEFT ET AL. / EAR & HEARING, VOL. 00, NO. 00, 000–000 11 Cutler, A. (1976). Phoneme-monitoring reaction time as a function <strong>of</strong> preceding intonation contour. Percept Psychophys, 20, 55–60. Divenyi, P. L., & Haupt, K. M. (1997). Audiological correlates <strong>of</strong> speech underst<strong>and</strong>ing deficits in elderly listeners with mild-to-moderate hearing loss. II. Correlation analysis. Ear Hear, 18, 100–113. Dorman, M. F., Cutting, J. E., Raphael, L. J. (1975). Perception <strong>of</strong> temporal order in vowel sequences with <strong>and</strong> without formant transitions. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform, 104, 147–153. Dorman, M. F., Marton, K., Hannley, M. T., et al. (1985). Phonetic identification by elderly normal <strong>and</strong> hearing-impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am, 77, 664–670. Dubno, J. R., Dirks, D. D., Morgan, D. E. (1984). <strong>Effects</strong> <strong>of</strong> age <strong>and</strong> mild hearing loss on speech recognition in noise. J Acoust Soc Am, 76, 87–96. Dubno, J. R., Lee, F. S., Matthews, L. J., et al. (2008). Longitudinal changes in speech recognition in older persons. J Acoust Soc Am, 123, 462–475. Elliott, L. L., Hammer, M. A., Scholl, M. E., et al. (1989). <strong>Age</strong> differences in discrimination <strong>of</strong> simulated single-formant frequency transitions. Percept Psychophys, 46, 181–186. Flanagan, J. L., & Golden, R. M. (1966). Phase vocoder. Bell System Tech J, 45, 1493–1509. Fitzgibbons, P. J., & Gordon-Salant, S. (1995). <strong>Age</strong> effects on duration discrimination with simple <strong>and</strong> complex stimuli. J Acoust Soc Am, 98, 3140–3145. Fitzgibbons, P. J., Gordon-Salant, S., Friedman, S. A. (2006). <strong>Effects</strong> <strong>of</strong> age <strong>and</strong> sequence presentation rate on temporal order recognition. J Acoust Soc Am, 120, 991–999. Folstein, M. F., Folstein, S. E., McHugh, P. R. (1975). “Mini-mental state”. A practical method for grading the cognitive state <strong>of</strong> patients for the clinician. J Psychiatr Res, 12, 189–198. Fox, R. A., Wall, L. G., Gokcen, J. (1992). <strong>Age</strong>-related differences in processing dynamic information to identify vowel quality. J Speech Hear Res, 35, 892–902. Frisina, R. D. (2001). Possible neurochemical <strong>and</strong> neuroanatomical bases <strong>of</strong> age-related hearing loss—presbycusis. Seminars Hear, 22, 213–225. Gelf<strong>and</strong>, S. A., Ross, L., Miller, S. (1988). Sentence reception in noise from one versus two sources: <strong>Effects</strong> <strong>of</strong> aging <strong>and</strong> hearing loss. J Acoust Soc Am, 83, 248–256. George, E. L., Zekveld, A. A., Kramer, S. E., et al. (2007). Auditory <strong>and</strong> nonauditory factors affecting speech reception in noise by older listeners. J Acoust Soc Am, 121, 2362–2375. Gifford, R. H., Bacon, S. P., Williams, E. J. (2007). An examination <strong>of</strong> speech recognition in a modulated background <strong>and</strong> <strong>of</strong> forward masking in younger <strong>and</strong> older listeners. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 50, 857–864. Gordon-Salant, S., & Fitzgibbons, P. J. (1993). Temporal factors <strong>and</strong> speech recognition performance in young <strong>and</strong> elderly listeners. J Speech Hear Res, 36, 1276–1285. Gordon-Salant, S., & Fitzgibbons, P. J. (1999). Pr<strong>of</strong>ile <strong>of</strong> auditory temporal processing in older listeners. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 42, 300–311. Grose, J. H., & Mamo, S. K. (2010). Processing <strong>of</strong> temporal fine structure as a function <strong>of</strong> age. Ear Hear, 31, 755–760. Grose, J. H., Mamo, S. K., Hall, J. W., III. (2009). <strong>Age</strong> effects in temporal envelope processing: speech unmasking <strong>and</strong> auditory steady state responses. Ear Hear, 30, 568–575. He, N. J., Mills, J. H., Dubno, J. R. (2007). Frequency modulation detection: <strong>Effects</strong> <strong>of</strong> age, psychophysical method, <strong>and</strong> modulation waveform. J Acoust Soc Am, 122, 467–477. He, N. J., Mills, J. H., Ahlstrom, J. B., et al. (2008). <strong>Age</strong>-related differences in the temporal modulation transfer function with pure-tone carriers. J Acoust Soc Am, 124, 3841–3849. Helfer, K. S., & Vargo, M. (2009). Speech recognition <strong>and</strong> temporal processing in middle-aged women. J Am Acad Audiol, 20, 264–271. Hopkins, K., & Moore, B. C. (2011). The effects <strong>of</strong> age <strong>and</strong> cochlear hearing loss on temporal fine structure sensitivity, frequency selectivity, <strong>and</strong> speech reception in noise. J Acoust Soc Am, 130, 334–349. Hopkins, K., Moore, B. C., Stone, M. A. (2008). <strong>Effects</strong> <strong>of</strong> moderate cochlear hearing loss on the ability to benefit from temporal fine structure information in speech. J Acoust Soc Am, 123, 1140–1153. Houtgast, T., & Steeneken, H. J. M. (1985). A review <strong>of</strong> the MTF concept in room acoustics <strong>and</strong> its use for estimating speech intelligibility in auditoria. J Acoust Soc Am, 77, 1069–1077. Humes, L. E., & Christopherson, L. (1991). Speech identification difficulties <strong>of</strong> hearing-impaired elderly persons: The contributions <strong>of</strong> auditory processing deficits. J Speech Hear Res, 34, 686–693. Irino, T., & Patterson, R. D. (2006). A dynamic compressive gammachirp auditory filterbank. IEEE Trans Audio Speech Lang Processing, 14, 2222–2232. Jesteadt, W., Bilger, R. C., Green, D. M., et al. (1976). Temporal acuity in listeners with sensorineural hearing loss. J Speech Hear Res, 19, 357–370. Kidd, G., Mason, C. R., Richards, V. M., et al. (2008). Informational masking. In W. A. Yost, A. N. Popper, & R. R. Fay (Eds). Auditory Perception <strong>of</strong> Sound Sources (pp. 143–189). New York, NY: Springer. Killion, M. C., Niquette, P. A., Gudmundsen, G. I., et al. (2004). Development <strong>of</strong> a quick speech-in-noise test for measuring signal-to-noise ratio loss in normal-hearing <strong>and</strong> hearing-impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am, 116(4 Pt 1), 2395–2405. Lackner, J. R., & Goldstein, L. M. (1974). Primary auditory stream segregation <strong>of</strong> repeated consonant-vowel sequences. J Acoust Soc Am, 56, 1651–1652. Laures, J. S., & Bunton, K. (2003). Perceptual effects <strong>of</strong> a flattened fundamental frequency at the sentence level under different listening conditions. J Commun Disord, 36, 449–464. Levitt, H. (1971). Transformed up-down methods in psychoacoustics. J Acoust Soc Am, 49 (2 Pt 2), 467–477. Li, N., & Loizou, P. C. (2008). The contribution <strong>of</strong> obstruent consonants <strong>and</strong> acoustic l<strong>and</strong>marks to speech recognition in noise. J Acoust Soc Am, 124, 3947–3958. . Lorenzi, C., Gilbert, G., Carn, H., et al. (2006). Speech perception problems <strong>of</strong> the hearing impaired reflect inability to use temporal fine structure. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 103, 18866–18869. Lorenzi, C., Debruille, L., Garnier, S., et al. (2009). Abnormal processing <strong>of</strong> temporal fine structure in speech for frequencies where absolute thresholds are normal. J Acoust Soc Am, 125, 27–30. Madden, J. P., & Fire, K. M. (1997). Detection <strong>and</strong> discrimination <strong>of</strong> frequency glides as a function <strong>of</strong> direction, duration, frequency span, <strong>and</strong> center frequency. J Acoust Soc Am, 102(5 Pt 1), 2920–2924. Miller, S. E., Schlauch, R. S., Watson, P. J. (2010). The effects <strong>of</strong> fundamental frequency contour manipulations on speech intelligibility in background noise. J Acoust Soc Am, 128, 435–443. Moore, B. C., & Sek, A. (1996). Detection <strong>of</strong> frequency modulation at low modulation rates: evidence for a mechanism based on phase locking. J Acoust Soc Am, 100(4 Pt 1), 2320–2331. Moore, B. C., & Skrodzka, E. (2002). Detection <strong>of</strong> frequency modulation by hearing-impaired listeners: <strong>Effects</strong> <strong>of</strong> carrier frequency, modulation rate, <strong>and</strong> added amplitude modulation. J Acoust Soc Am, 111(1 Pt 1), 327–335. Papoulis, A. (1983). R<strong>and</strong>om modulation: A review. IEEE Trans Acoust Speech Signal Process, 31, 96–105. Patterson, J. H., & Green, D. M. (1970). Discrimination <strong>of</strong> transient signals having identical energy spectra. J Acoust Soc Am, 48, 894–905. Phillips, S. L., Gordon-Salant, S., Fitzgibbons, P. J., et al. (2000). Frequency <strong>and</strong> temporal resolution in elderly listeners with good <strong>and</strong> poor word recognition. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 43, 217–228. Pichora-Fuller, M. K., & Souza, P. E. (2003). <strong>Effects</strong> <strong>of</strong> aging on auditory processing <strong>of</strong> speech. Int J Audiol, 42, 2S11-2S16. Plomp, R. (1978). Auditory h<strong>and</strong>icap <strong>of</strong> hearing impairment <strong>and</strong> the limited benefit <strong>of</strong> hearing aids. J Acoust Soc Am, 63, 533–549. Plomp, R., & Mimpen, A. M. (1979). Speech-reception threshold for sentences as a function <strong>of</strong> age <strong>and</strong> noise level. J Acoust Soc Am, 66, 1333–1342. Remez, R. E., Rubin, P. E., Berns, S. M., et al. (1994). On the perceptual organization <strong>of</strong> speech. Psychol Rev, 101, 129–156. Sheft, S., & Lorenzi, C. (2008). Discrimination <strong>of</strong> stochastic patterns <strong>of</strong> frequency modulation relevant to speech perception. J Acoust Soc Am, 123, 3711. Sheft, S., Ardoint, M., Lorenzi, C. (2008). Speech identification based on temporal fine structure cues. J Acoust Soc Am, 124, 562–575. Snell, K. B., Mapes, F. M., Hickman, E. D., et al. (2002). Word recognition in competing babble <strong>and</strong> the effects <strong>of</strong> age, temporal processing, <strong>and</strong> absolute sensitivity. J Acoust Soc Am, 112, 720–727. Souza, P., Arehart, K., Miller, C. W., et al. (2011). <strong>Effects</strong> <strong>of</strong> age on F0 discrimination <strong>and</strong> intonation perception in simulated electric <strong>and</strong> electroacoustic hearing. Ear Hear, 32, 75–83. Spitzer, S. M., Liss, J. M., Mattys, S. L. (2007). Acoustic cues to lexical segmentation: A study <strong>of</strong> resynthesized speech. J Acoust Soc Am, 122, 3678–3687. Stevens, K. N. (2002). Toward a model for lexical access based on acoustic l<strong>and</strong>marks <strong>and</strong> distinctive features. J Acoust Soc Am, 111, 1872–1891. Copyright © Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction <strong>of</strong> this article is prohibited.
Page 1 and 2: 1 Copyright © Lippincott Williams
Page 3 and 4: SHEFT ET AL. / EAR & HEARING, VOL.
Page 9: SHEFT ET AL. / EAR & HEARING, VOL.

Effects of Age and Hearing Loss on the ... - Rush University

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?