Comparison of real and simulated hearing impairment in subjects with unilateral and bilateral cochlear hearing loss

British Journal of Audiology

Volumn 31, Issue 4, 1997, Pages 227-245

  Moore, Brian C J ^a   Vickers, Deborah A ^a   Glasberg, Brian R ^a   Baer, Thomas ^a  

^a UK   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Frequency selectivity; Hearing impairment; Loudness recruitment; Simulation of hearing impairment; Speech intelligibility

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; AUDITORY STIMULATION; AUDITORY THRESHOLD; CASE REPORT; COCHLEA; CONTROLLED STUDY; FILTER; HAIR CELL; HEARING IMPAIRMENT; HUMAN; LOUDNESS; NERVE CELL; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SPEECH INTELLIGIBILITY; SPEECH PERCEPTION;

EID: 0030765753     PISSN: 03005364     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3109/03005369709076796     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Allen JB. Short term spectral analysis, synthesis and modification by discrete Fourier transform. IEEE Trans Acoust Speech Sig Proc 1977; 25: 235-8.
2. Allen JB, Jeng PS. Loudness growth in 1/2- octave bands (LGOB); a procedure for the assessment of loudness. J Acoust Soc Am 1990; 88: 745-53.
3. Baer T, Moore BCJ. Effects of spectral smearing on the intelligibility of sentences in the presence of noise. J Acoust Soc Am 1993; 94: 1229-41.
4. Baer T, Moore BCJ. Effects of spectral smearing on the intelligibility of sentences in the presence of interfering speech. J Acoust Soc Am 1994; 95: 2277-80.
5. Borg E, Canlon B, Engström B. Noise-induced hearing loss - Literature review and experiments in rabbits. Scand Audiol 1995; 24, Suppl. 40: 1-147.
6. Byrne D, Dillon H. The National Acoustic Laboratories' (NAL) new procedure for selecting the gain and frequency response of a hearing aid. Ear Hear 1986; 7: 257-65.
7. Celmer RD, Bienvenue GR. Critical bands in the perception of speech signals by normal and sensorineural hearing loss listeners. In: Schouten MEH, ed. The Psychophysics of Speech Perception, Dordrecht, Netherlands: Nijhoff, 1987; 473-80.
8. Duchnowski P, Zurek PM. Villchur revisited: Another look at automatic gain control simulation of hearing loss. J Acoust Soc Am 1995; 98: 3170-81.
9. Duquesnoy AJ. Effect of a single interfering noise or speech source on the binaural sentence intelligibility of aged persons. J Acoust Soc Am 1983; 74: 739-43.
10. Festen J. Explorations on the difference in SRT between a stationary noise masker and an interfering speaker. J Acoust Soc Am 1987a; 82: S4.
11. Festen JM. Speech-reception threshold in fluctuating background sound and its possible relation to temporal auditory resolution. In: Schouten MEH, ed. The Psychophysics of Speech Perception, Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Nijhoff, 1987b.
12. Festen JM, Plomp R. Effects of fluctuating noise and interfering speech on the speech-reception threshold for impaired and normal hearing. J Acoust Soc Am 1990; 88: 1725-36.
13. Florentine M, Buus S, Hellman R P. A model of loudness summation applied to high-frequency hearing loss. In: Jesteadt W, ed. Modeling Sensorineural Hearing Loss, Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum, 1997.
14. Gatehouse S. The time course and magnitude of perceptual acclimatization to frequency responses: Evidence from monaural fitting of hearing aids. J Acoust Soc Am 1992; 92: 1258-68.
15. Glasberg BR, Moore BCJ. Auditory filter shapes in subjects with unilateral and bilateral cochlear impairments. J Acoust Soc Am 1986; 79: 1020-33.
16. Glasberg BR, Moore BCJ. Psychoacoustic abilities of subjects with unilateral and bilateral cochlear impairments and their relationship to the ability to understand speech. Scand Audiol 1989; Suppl. 32: 1-25.
17. Hellbrück J, Moser L M. Hörgeräte Audiometrie: Ein computer-unterstütztes psychologisches Verfahren zur Hörgeräteanpassung. Psychologische Beiträge 1985; 27: 494-509.
18. Hellman RP. Relation between the growth of loudness and high-frequency excitation. J Acoust Soc Am 1994; 96: 2655-63.
19. Hellman RP, Meiselman CH. Rate of loudness growth for pure tones in normal and impaired hearing. J Acoust Soc Am 1993; 93: 966-75.
20. Hood JD. Speech discrimination in bilateral and unilateral loss due to Ménière's disease. Brit J Audiol 1984; 18: 173-8.
21. Horst JW. Frequency discrimination of complex signals, frequency selectivity and speech perception in hearing-impaired subjects. J Acoust Soc Am 1987; 82: 874-85.
22. Howard-Jones PA, Summers IR. Temporal features in spectrally degraded speech. Acoust Lett 1992; 15: 159-63.
23. Hygge S, Rönnberg J, Larsby B, Arlinger S. Normal-hearing and hearing-impaired subjects' ability to just follow conversation in competing speech, reversed speech, and noise backgrounds. J Speech Hear Res 1992; 35: 208-15.
24. Kiessling J, Steffens T, Wagner I. Untersuchungen zur praktischen Anwendbarkeit der Lautheitsskalierung. Audiologische Akustik 1993; 4/93: 100-15.
25. MacLeod A, Summerfield Q. A procedure for measuring auditory and audio-visual speech- reception thresholds for sentences in noise: rationale, evaluation, and recommendations for use. Brit J Audiol 1990; 24: 29-43.
26. Moore BCJ. Perceptual Consequences of Cochlear Damage. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995.
27. Moore BCJ, Glasberg BR. Simulation of the effects of loudness recruitment and threshold elevation on the intelligibility of speech in quiet and in a background of speech. J Acoust Soc Am 1993; 94: 2050-62.
28. Moore BCJ, Glasberg BR. A model of loudness perception applied to cochlear hearing loss. Auditory Neurosci 1997; 3: 289-311.
29. Moore BCJ, Glasberg BR, Vickers DA. Simulation of the effects of loudness recruitment on the intelligibility of speech in noise. Brit J Audiol 1995; 29: 131-43.
30. Moore BCJ, Laurence RF, Wright D. Improvements in speech intelligibility in quiet and in noise produced by two-channel compression hearing aids. Brit J Audiol 1985; 19: 175-87.
31. Moore BCJ, Wojtczak M, Vickers DA. Effect of loudness recruitment on the perception of amplitude modulation. J Acoust Soc Am 1996; 100: 481-9.
32. Murray N, Byrne D. Performance of hearing- impaired and normal hearing listeners with various high-frequency cut-offs in hearing aids. Aust J Audiol 1986; 8: 21-8.
33. Nejime Y, Moore BCJ. Simulation of the effect of threshold elevation and loudness recruitment combined with reduced frequency selectivity on the intelligibility of speech in noise. J Acoust Soc Am 1997; (in press).
34. Pascoe DP. An approach to hearing aid selection. Hear Inst 1978; 29: 12-6.
35. Stone MA, Glasberg BR, Moore BCJ. Simplified measurement of impaired auditory filter shapes using the notched-noise method. Brit J Audiol 1992; 26: 329-34.
36. Summers IR. Electronically simulated hearing loss and the perception of degraded speech. In: Wise DL, ed. Bioinstrumentation and Biosensors, New York: Marcel Dekker, 1991; 589-610.
37. Summers IR, Al-Dabbagh AD. Simulated loss of frequency selectivity and its effects on speech perception. Acoust Lett 1982; 5: 129-32.
38. ter Keurs M, Festen JM, Plomp R. Effect of spectral envelope smearing on speech reception. I. J Acoust Soc Am 1992; 91: 2872-80.
39. ter Keurs M, Festen JM, Plomp R. Effect of spectral envelope smearing on speech reception. II. J Acoust Soc Am 1993; 93: 1547-52.
40. Thornton AR, Abbas PJ. Low-frequency hearing loss: perception of filtered speech, psychophysical tuning curves, and masking. J Acoust Soc Am 1980; 67: 638-43.
41. Villchur E. Simulation of the effect of recruitment on loudness relationships in speech. J Acoust Soc Am 1974; 56: 1601-11.
42. Villchur E. Electronic models to simulate the effect of sensory distortions on speech perception by the deaf. J Acoust Soc Am 1977; 62: 665-74.