Perception of speech with envelope enhancement in individuals with auditory neuropathy and simulated loss of temporal modulation processing

International Journal of Audiology

Volumn 48, Issue 10, 2009, Pages 700-707

  Narne, Vijaya Kumar ^a,c   Vanaja, C S ^b  

^a ALL INDIA INSTITUTE OF SPEECH AND HEARING   (India)

^b Bharati Vidyapeeth   (India)

^c MACQUARIE UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

Author keywords

Assistive technology; Behavioral measures; Psychoacoustics hearing science; Speech perception

Indexed keywords

ACOUSTIC REFLEX; ADULT; ARTICLE; CHILD; CONTROLLED STUDY; ENVELOPE ENHANCEMENT SCHEME; EVOKED BRAIN STEM AUDITORY RESPONSE; FEMALE; HEARING AID; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; MALE; MODULATION; NORMAL HUMAN; OTOACOUSTIC EMISSION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SCHOOL CHILD; SIGNAL PROCESSING; SIMULATION; SPEECH PERCEPTION; VESTIBULOCOCHLEAR NERVE DISEASE;

ACOUSTIC STIMULATION; ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AUDIOMETRY, PURE-TONE; AUDITORY DISEASES, CENTRAL; CHILD; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; SOUND SPECTROGRAPHY; SPEECH; SPEECH PERCEPTION; TASK PERFORMANCE AND ANALYSIS; TIME FACTORS; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 70350101309     PISSN: 14992027     EISSN: 17088186     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/14992020902931574     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. American National Standards Institute 1996. Specification for audiometers.
2. ANSI S3.6-1996. New York: American National Standards Institute.
3. American National Standards Institute 1999. Maximum permissible ambient noise for audiometric rooms. ANSI S3.1-1999. New York: American National Standards Institute.
4. Apoux, F., Crouzet, O. & Lorenzi, C. 2001. Temporal envelope expansion of speech in noise for normal-hearing and hearingimpaired listeners: Effects on identification performance and response times. Hear Res, 153, 123-131.
5. Apoux, F., Tribut, N., Debruille, X. & Lorenzi, C. 2004. Identification of envelope-expanded sentences in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. Hear Res, 189, 13-24.
6. Berlin, C.I., Morlet, T. & Hood, L. 2003. Auditory neuropathy/dyssynchrony: Its diagnosis and management. Pediatr Clin North Am, 50, 331-340. (Pubitemid 36666560)
7. Clarkson, P.M. & Bahgat, S.F. 1991. Envelope expansion methods for speech enhancement. J Acoust Soc Am, 89, 1378-1382.
8. Drullman, R., Festen, J.M. & Plomp, R. 1994a. Effect of temporal envelope smearing on speech reception. J Acoust Soc Am, 95, 1053-1064. (Pubitemid 24056370)
9. Drullman, R., Festen, J.M. & Houtgast, T. 1996. Effect of temporal modulation reduction on spectral contrasts in speech. J Acoust Soc Am, 99, 2358-2364.
10. Fu, Q.J. & Shannon, R.V. 1998. Effects of amplitude nonlinearity on phoneme recognition by cochlear implant users and normal-hearing listeners. J Acoust Soc Am, 104, 2570-2577.
11. Houtgast, T. & Steeneken, H.J.M. 1985. A review of the MFT concept in room acoustics and its use for estimating speech intelligibility in auditoria. J Acoust Soc Am, 77, 1069-1077.
12. Kraus, N., Bradlow, A.R., Cheatham, M.A., Cunningham, J., King, C.D., et al. 2000. Consequences of neural asynchrony: A case of auditory neuropathy. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol, 1, 33-45.
13. Krause, J.C. & Braida, L.D. 2004. Acoustic properties of naturally produced clear speech at normal speaking rate. J Acoust Soc Am, 115, 362-378.
14. Narne, V.K. & Vanaja, C.S. 2008. Effect of envelope enhancement on speech perception in individuals with auditory neuropathy. Ear Hear, 29, 45-53.
15. Picheny, M.A., Durlach, N.I. & Braida, L.D. 1985. Speaking clearly for the hard of hearing. I: Intelligibility differences between clear and conversational speech. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 28, 96-103.
16. Picheny, M.A., Durlach, N.I. & Braida, L.D. 1986. Speaking clearly for the hard of hearing II. Acoustic characteristics of clear and conversational speech. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 29, 434-446.
17. Plomp, R. 1988. The negative effect of amplitude compression in multichannel hearing aids in the light of the modulation-transfer function. J Acoust Soc Am, 83, 2322-2327.
18. Rance, G., Cone-Wesson, B., Shepherd, R.K., Dowell, R.C., King, A.M., et al. 2002. Speech perception and cortical event related potentials in children with auditory neuropathy. Ear Hear, 23, 239-253.
19. Rance, G., McKay, C. & Grayden, D. 2004. Perceptual characterization of children with auditory neuropathy. Ear Hear, 25, 34-46.
20. Rapin, I. & Gravel, J. 2003. Auditory neuropathy: Physiologic and pathologic evidence calls for more diagnostic specificity. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol, 67, 707-728.
21. Shannon, R.V., Zeng, F. G., Kamath, V.,Wygonisk, J. & Ekelid, M. 1995. Speech recognition with preliminarily temporal cues. Science, 270, 303-304.
22. Starr, A., Michalewski, H.J., Zeng, F.G., Brooks, S.F. & Linthicum, F., et al. 2003. Pathology and physiology of auditory neuropathy with a novel mutation in the MPZ gene. Brain, 126, 1604-1619.
23. Starr, A., Picton, T.W., Sininger, S., Hood, L.J. & Berlin, C.I. 1996. Auditory neuropathy. Brain, 119, 741-753.
24. Starr, A., Picton, T.W. & Kim, R. 2001. Pathophysiology of auditory neuropathy. In Y. Sininger & A. Starr (eds.) Auditory Neuropathy: A New Perspective on Hearing Disorders. San Diego: Singular- Thomson Learning, pp. 15-35.
25. Yathiraj A. & Vijayalakshmi C.S. 2006. Auditory memory test. A test developed at the Department of Audiology, AIISH, Mysore.
26. Zeng, F.G., Oba, S., Grade, S., Sininger, Y. & Starr, A. 1999. Temporal and speech processing deficits in auditory neuropathy. Neuroreport, 10, 3429-3435.
27. Zeng, F.G., Oba, S., Grade, S., Sininger, Y. & Starr, A. 2001. Psychoacoustics and speech perception in auditory neuropathy. In Y. Sininger & A. Starr (eds.) Auditory Neuropathy: A New Perspective on Hearing Disorders. Sandiago: Singular-Thomson Learning, pp. 15-35.
28. Zeng, F.G., Kong, Y.Y., Michalewski, H.J. & Starr, A. 2005. Perceptual consequences of disrupted auditory nerve activity. J Neurophysiol, 93, 3050-3063.
29. Zeng, F.G. & Liu, S. 2006. Speech perception in individuals with AN. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 49, 367-380.