Effects of age on concurrent vowel perception in acoustic and simulated electroacoustic hearing

Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research

Volumn 54, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 190-210

  Arehart, Kathryn H ^a   Souza, Pamela E ^b   Muralimanohar, Ramesh Kumar ^a   Miller, Christi Wise ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO   (United States)

^b NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

Author keywords

Aging; Competing speech perception; Electroacoustic hearing; Envelope and fine structure perception

Indexed keywords

ACOUSTIC IMPEDANCE; ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; AGING; ARTICLE; AUDITORY STIMULATION; COCHLEA PROSTHESIS; COMPARATIVE STUDY; ELECTROSTIMULATION; FEMALE; HEARING; HUMAN; MALE; PATHOPHYSIOLOGY; PHONETICS; PHYSIOLOGY; PRESBYACUSIS; SPEECH AUDIOMETRY; SPEECH PERCEPTION;

ACOUSTIC IMPEDANCE TESTS; ACOUSTIC STIMULATION; ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; AGING; AUDIOMETRY, SPEECH; COCHLEAR IMPLANTS; ELECTRIC STIMULATION; FEMALE; HEARING; HUMANS; MALE; PHONETICS; PRESBYCUSIS; SPEECH DISCRIMINATION TESTS; SPEECH PERCEPTION; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 79551697896     PISSN: 10924388     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1044/1092-4388(2010/09-0145)     Document Type: Article

References (86)

1. Alain, C., Dyson, B. J., & Snyder, J. S. (2006). Aging and the perceptual organization of sounds: A change of scene? In P. M. Conn (Ed.), Handbook of models for human aging (pp. 759-769). New York, NY: Academic Press.
2. Alain, C., & McDonald, K. L. (2007). Age-related differences in neuromagnetic brain activity underlying concurrent sound perception. Journal of Neuroscience, 27, 1308-1314.
3. Alain, C., McDonald, K. L., Ostroff, J. M., & Schneider, B. (2004). Aging: A switch from automatic to controlled processing of sounds? Psychology and Aging, 19, 125-133. (Pubitemid 38338270)
4. Alain, C., Reinke, K., He, Y., Wang, C. H., & Lobaugh, N. (2005). Hearing two things at once: Neurophysiological indices of speech segregation and identification. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 17, 811-818. (Pubitemid 40632501)
5. American National Standards Institute. (2004). Specifications for audiometers (ANSI S3.6-2004). New York, NY: Author.
6. Arehart, K. H. (1994). Effects of harmonic content on complextone fundamental-frequency discrimination in hearingimpaired listeners. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 95, 3574-3585. (Pubitemid 24189509)
7. Arehart, K. H., King, C. A., & McLean-Mudgett, K. S. (1997). Role of fundamental frequency differences in the perceptual separation of competing vowel sounds by listeners with normal hearing and listeners with hearing loss. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 40, 1434-1444. (Pubitemid 28008837)
8. Arehart, K. H., Rossi-Katz, J., & Swensson-Prutsman, J. (2005). Double-vowel perception in listeners with cochlear hearing loss: Differences in fundamental frequency, ear of presentation, and relative amplitude. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 48, 236-252. (Pubitemid 40470885)
9. Assmann, P. F., & Paschall, D. D. (1998). Pitches of concurrent vowels. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 103, 1150-1160. (Pubitemid 28087584)
10. Assmann, P. F., & Summerfield, Q. (1989). Modeling the perception of concurrent vowels: Vowels with the same fundamental frequency. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 85, 327-338. (Pubitemid 19041129)
11. Assmann, P. F., & Summerfield, Q. (1990). Modeling the perception of concurrent vowels: Vowels with different fundamental frequencies. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 88, 680-697. (Pubitemid 20289767)
12. Assmann, P. F., & Summerfield, Q. (1994). The contribution of wave-form interactions to the perception of concurrent vowels. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 95, 471-484. (Pubitemid 24027844)
13. Bachorowski, J. (1999). Vocal expression and perception of emotion. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 8, 53-57.
14. Bernstein, J. G., & Oxenham, A. J. (2003). Pitch discrimination of diotic and dichotic tone complexes: Harmonic resolvability or harmonic number? The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 113, 3323-3334. (Pubitemid 36676525)
15. Bird, J., & Darwin, C. J. (1998). Effects of a difference in fundamental frequency in separating two sentences. In A. R. Palmer, A. Rees, A. Q. Summerfield, & R. Meddis (Eds.), Psychophysical and physiological advances in hearing (pp. 263-269). London, United Kingdom: Whurr.
16. Brokx, J. P. L., & Nooteboom, S. G. (1982). Intonation and the perceptual separation of simultaneous voices. Journal of Phonetics, 10, 23-36.
17. Brown, C. A., & Bacon, S. P. (2009a). Achieving electricacoustic benefit with a modulated tone. Ear and Hearing, 30, 489-493.
18. Brown, C. A., & Bacon, S. P. (2009b). Low-frequency speech cues and simulated electric-acoustic hearing. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 125, 1658-1665.
19. Byrne, D., & Dillon, H. (1986). The National Acoustic Laboratories (NAL) new procedure for selecting the gain and frequency-response of a hearing aid. Ear and Hearing, 7, 257-265. (Pubitemid 16041360)
20. Carroll, J., & Zeng, F. G. (2007). Fundamental frequency discrimination and speech perception in noise in cochlear implant simulations. Hearing Research, 231(1-2), 42-53. (Pubitemid 47211721)
21. Cerella, J. (1990). Aging and information-processing rate. In J. E. Birren & K. W. Schaie (Eds.), Handbook of the psychology of aging (3rd ed., pp. 201-221). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
22. Chang, J. E., Bai, J. Y., & Zeng, F. G. (2006). Unintelligible low-frequency sound enhances simulated cochlear-implant speech recognition in noise. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, 53, 2598-2601. (Pubitemid 46019550)
23. 0 with cochlear implants: Modulation frequency discrimination and speech intonation recognition. Hearing Research, 235(1-2), 143-156. (Pubitemid 50019115)
24. Craik, F. I. M., & Byrd, M. (1982). Aging and cognitive deficits: The role of attentional resources. In F. I. M. Craik & S. Trehub (Eds.), Aging and cognitive processes (pp. 191-211). New York, NY: Plenum.
25. 0. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 93, 3454-3467. (Pubitemid 23165760)
26. Culling, J. F., & Darwin, C. J. (1994). Perceptual and computational separation of simultaneous vowels: Cues arising from low-frequency beating. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 95, 1559-1569. (Pubitemid 24085757)
27. Cullington, H. E., & Zeng, F. G. (2008). Speech recognition with varying numbers and types of competing talkers by normal-hearing, cochlear-implant, and implant simulation subjects. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 123, 450-461.
28. De Cheveigné, A. (1999). Waveform interactions and the segregation of concurrent vowels. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 106, 2959-2972.
29. 0 difference. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 101, 2839-2847.
30. Dorman, M. F., Gifford, R. H., Spahr, A. J., & McKarns, S. A. (2008). The benefits of combining acoustic and electric stimulation for the recognition of speech, voice and melodies. Audiology and Neurotology, 13, 105-112. (Pubitemid 351225889)
31. Federal Interagency Forum on Aging-Related Statistics. (2008, March). Older Americans 2008: Key indicators of wellbeing. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
32. Folstein, M. F., Folstein, S. E., & McHugh, P. R. (1975). Mini-mental state: Practical method for grading cognitive state of patients for clinician. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 12, 189-198.
33. Frisina, D. R., Frisina, R. D., Snell, K. B., Burkard, R., Walton, J. P., & Ison, J. R. (2000). Auditory temporal acuity during aging. In P. R. Hof & C. V. Mobbs (Eds.), Functional neurobiology of aging (pp. 565-579). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
34. Fu, Q. J., Chinchilla, S., Nogaki, G., & Galvin, J. J. (2005). Voice gender identification by cochlear implant users: The role of spectral and temporal resolution. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 118, 1711-1718. (Pubitemid 41318598)
35. Gantz, B. J., Hansen, M. R., Turner, C. W., Oleson, J. J., Reiss, L. A., & Parkinson, A. J. (2009). Hybrid 10 clinical trial preliminary results. Audiology and Neurotology, 14, 32-38.
36. Gelfer, M. P., & Mikos, V. A. (2005). The relative contributions of speaking fundamental frequency and formant frequencies to gender identification based on isolated vowels. Journal of Voice, 19, 544-554. (Pubitemid 41654654)
37. Gordon-Salant, S., & Fitzgibbons, P. J. (1993). Temporal factors and speech recognition performance in young and elderly listeners. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 36, 1276-1285. (Pubitemid 23354182)
38. Greenwood, D. D. (1990). A cochlear frequency-position function for several species-29 years later. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 87, 2592-2605. (Pubitemid 20289735)
39. Hellstrom, L. I., & Schmiedt, R. A. (1990). Compound action potential input/output functions in young and quiet-aged gerbils. Hearing Research, 50(1-2), 163-174.
40. 0 and formant frequencies in distinguishing the voices of men and women. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 71, 1150-1166.
41. Houtsma, A. J. M., & Smurzynski, J. (1990). Pitch identification and discrimination for complex tones with many harmonics. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 87, 304-310. (Pubitemid 20090734)
42. Klatt, D. H. (1980). Software for a cascade-parallel formant synthesizer. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 67, 971-995.
43. Kong, Y., Stickney, G. S., & Zeng, F. G. (2005). Speech and melody recognition in binaurally combined acoustic and electric hearing. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 117, 1351-1361. (Pubitemid 40358004)
44. Kong, Y. Y., & Carlyon, R. P. (2007). Improved speech recognition in noise in simulated binaurally combined acoustic and electric stimulation. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 121, 3717-3727. (Pubitemid 46872129)
45. Kuo, Y. C., Rosen, S., & Faulkner, A. (2008). Acoustic cues to tonal contrasts in Mandarin: Implications for cochlear implants. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 123, 2815-2824. (Pubitemid 351677942)
46. Li, N., & Loizou, P. (2007). Factors influencing glimpsing of speech in noise. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 122, 1165-1172. (Pubitemid 47205513)
47. Li, N., & Loizou, P. (2008). A glimpsing account for the benefit of simulated combined acoustic and electric hearing. The Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 123, 2287-2294. (Pubitemid 351503002)
48. Luetje, C. M., Thedinger, B. S., Buckler, L. R., Dawson, K. L., & Lisbona, K. L. (2007). Hybrid cochlear implantation: Clinical results and critical review in 13 cases. Otology & Neurotology, 28, 473-478. (Pubitemid 47264550)
49. McCoy, S. L., Tun,P. A., Cox, L. C., Colangelo, M., Stewart, R. A., & Wingfield, A. (2005). Hearing loss and perceptual effort: Downstream effects on older adults' memory for speech. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58, 22-33. (Pubitemid 40166893)
50. Meddis, R., & Hewitt, M. J. (1992). Modeling the identification of concurrent vowels with different fundamental frequencies. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 91, 233-245.
51. Micheyl, C., & Oxenham, A. J. (2009). Pitch, harmonicity and concurrent sound segregation: Psychoacoustical and neurophysiological findings. Hearing Research, 266(1-2), 36-51. doi:10.1016/j.heares.2009.09.012.
52. Murphy, D. R., Craik, F. I. M., Li, K. Z., & Schneider, B. A. (2000). Comparing the effects of aging and background noise on short-term memory performance. Psychology and Aging, 15, 323-334.
53. Peterson, G. E., & Barney, H. L. (1952). Control methods used in a study of the vowels. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 24, 175-184.
54. Pichora-Fuller, M. K., Schneider, B. A., & Daneman, M. (1995). How young and old adults listen to and remember speech in noise. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 97, 593-608.
55. Pilotti, M., Beyer, T., & Yasunami, M. (2001). Encoding tasks and the processing of perceptual information in young and older adults. The Journals of Gerontology. Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 56(2), P119-P128. (Pubitemid 32193151)
56. 0 discrimination and concurrentvowel identification. Ear and Hearing, 26, 451-460. (Pubitemid 41510891)
57. Qin, M. K., & Oxenham, A. J. (2006). Effects of introducing unprocessed low-frequency information on the reception of envelope-vocoder processed speech. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 119, 2417-2426.
58. Rosen, S., Faulkner, A., & Wilkinson, L. (1999). Adaptation by normal listeners to upward spectral shifts of speech: Implications for cochlear implants. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 106, 3629-3636. (Pubitemid 129520726)
59. Rossi-Katz, J. A.,&Arehart, K. H. (2005). Effects of cochlear hearing loss on perceptual grouping cues in competing-vowel perception. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 118, 2588-2598. (Pubitemid 41463969)
60. Rossi-Katz, J., & Arehart, K. H. (2009). Message and talker identification in older adults: Effects of task, distinctiveness of the talkers' voices, and meaningfulness of the competing message. Journal ofSpeech, Language, and Hearing Research, 52, 435-453.
61. Salthouse, T. A. (1991). Theoretical perspectives on cognitive aging. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
62. Scheffers, M. T. M. (1983). Simulation of auditory analysis of pitch: An elaboration on the DWS pitch meter. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 74, 1716-1725.
63. Schneider, B. A., Daneman, M., Murphy, D. R., & Kwong See, S. (2000). Listening to discourse in distracting settings: The effects of aging. Psychology and Aging, 15, 110-125.
64. Shannon, R. V., Zeng, F. G., Kamath, V., Wygonski, J., & Ekelid, M. (1995, October 13). Speech recognition with primarily temporal cues. Science, 270, 303-304.
65. Snyder, J. S., & Alain, C. (2005). Age-related changes in neural activity associated with concurrent vowel segregation. Cognitive Brain Research, 24, 492-499. (Pubitemid 41133286)
66. Sommers, M. S. (1997). Speech perception in older adults: The importance of speech-specific cognitive abilities. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 45, 633-637. (Pubitemid 27213137)
67. 0 discrimination and intonation perception in simulated electric and electroacoustic hearing. Manuscript submitted for publication.
68. Souza, P. E., & Boike, K. T. (2006). Combining temporalenvelope cues across channels: Effects of age and hearing loss. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 49, 138-149. (Pubitemid 46940119)
69. Souza, P., & Rosen, S. (2009). Effects of envelope bandwidth on the intelligibility of sine- and noise-vocoded speech. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 126, 792-805.
70. Stickney, G. S., Assmann, P. F., Chang, J., & Zeng, F. G. (2007). Effects of cochlear implant processing and fundamental frequency on the intelligibility of competing sentences. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 122, 1069-1078. (Pubitemid 47205505)
71. Stickney, G. S., Zeng, F. G., Litovsky, R., & Assmann, P. (2004). Cochlear implant speech recognition with speech maskers. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 116, 1081-1091. (Pubitemid 39063197)
72. Stone, M. A., Fullgrabe, C., & Moore, B. C. J. (2008). Benefit of high-rate envelope cues in vocoder processing: Effect of number of channels and spectral region. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 124, 2272-2282.
73. Strouse, A., Ashmead, D. H., Ohde, R. N., & Grantham, D. W. (1998). Temporal processing in the aging auditory system. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 104, 2385-2399. (Pubitemid 28463135)
74. Studebaker, G. A. (1985). A "rationalized" arcsine transform. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 28, 455-462.
75. 0 processing and the separation of competing speech signals by listeners with normal hearing and with hearing loss. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 41, 1294-1306. (Pubitemid 28563615)
76. Turner, C.W., Gantz, B. J., & Reiss, L. (2008). Integration of acoustic and electrical hearing. Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development, 45, 769-778.
77. Turner, C. W., Gantz, B. J., Vidal, C., Behrens, A., & Henry, B. A. (2004). Speech recognition in noise for cochlear implant listeners: Benefits of residual acoustic hearing. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 115, 1729-1735. (Pubitemid 38451327)
78. 0 difference limen and concurrent vowel identification. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 50, 1139-1156. (Pubitemid 350058545)
79. Walton, J. P., Simon, H., & Frisina, R. D. (2002). Agerelated alterations in the neural coding of envelope periodicities. Journal of Neurophysiology, 88, 565-578. (Pubitemid 34874391)
80. Wei, C. G., Cao, K. L., & Zeng, F. G. (2004). Mandarin tone recognition in cochlear-implant subjects. Hearing Research, 197(1-2), 87-95.
81. Whiteside, S. P. (1998). The identification of a speaker's sex from synthesized vowels. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 87, 595-600.
82. Whitmal, N. A., Poissant, S. F., Freyman, R. L., & Helfer, K. S. (2007). Speech intelligibility in cochlear implant simulations: Effects of carrier type, interfering noise, and subject experience. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 122, 2376-2388. (Pubitemid 47493363)
83. Wiley, T. L., Cruickshanks, K. J., Nondahl, D. M., Tweed, T. S., Klein, R., & Klein, B. E. K. (1996). Tympanometric measures in older adults. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 7, 260-268.
84. Wilson, B. S., & Dorman, M. F. (2008). Cochlear implants: Current designs and future possibilities. Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development, 45, 695-730.
85. Wingfield, A., & Tun, P. A. (2007). Cognitive supports and cognitive constraints on comprehension of spoken language. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 18, 548-558. (Pubitemid 351175758)
86. 0) region accounts for the majority of the benefit when acoustic stimulation is added to electric stimulation. Ear and Hearing, 31, 63-69.