Relations between perceptual measures of temporal processing, auditory-evoked brainstem responses and speech intelligibility in noise

Hearing Research

Volumn 280, Issue 1-2, 2011, Pages 30-37

  Papakonstantinou, Alexandra ^a   Strelcyk, Olaf ^b   Dau, Torsten ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OLDENBURG   (Germany)

^b TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY OF DENMARK   (Denmark)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACOUSTIC STRESS; ADULT; AGED; AMPLITUDE MODULATION; ARTICLE; AUDITORY DISCRIMINATION; AUDITORY MASKING; BRAIN ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; EVOKED BRAIN STEM AUDITORY RESPONSE; FEMALE; FREQUENCY DISCRIMINATION; HEARING IMPAIRMENT; HEARING LOSS; HUMAN; LANGUAGE PROCESSING; LOW FREQUENCY NOISE; MALE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PURE TONE AUDIOMETRY; SIGNAL DETECTION; SPEECH AUDIOMETRY; SPEECH INTELLIGIBILITY;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; AUDITORY PERCEPTION; AUDITORY THRESHOLD; ELECTROPHYSIOLOGICAL PHENOMENA; EVOKED POTENTIALS, AUDITORY, BRAIN STEM; FEMALE; HEARING LOSS; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NOISE; PSYCHOACOUSTICS; SPEECH INTELLIGIBILITY; SPEECH PERCEPTION; SPEECH RECEPTION THRESHOLD TEST; TEMPORAL LOBE;

EID: 80053050993     PISSN: 03785955     EISSN: 18785891     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.heares.2011.02.005     Document Type: Article

References (59)

1. Bacon S.P., Gleitman R.M. Modulation detection in subjects with relatively flat hearing losses. J. Speech Hear. Res. 1985, 35:642-653.
2. Bronkhorst A.-W. The cocktail party phenomenon: a review of research on speech intelligibility in multiple-talker conditions. Acustica 2000, 86:117-128.
3. Buss E., Hall J.-W., Grose J.-H. Temporal fine-structure cue to speech and pure tone modulation in observers with sensorineural hearing loss. Ear Hear. 2004, 25:242-250.
4. Carney L.-H., Heinz M.-G., Evilsizer M.-E., Gilkey R.-H., Colburn H.-S. Auditory phase oppponency: A temporal model for masked detection at low frequencies. Acta Acust. United Ac. 2002, 88:334-347.
5. Christiansen, T.-U., Greenberg, S., 2005. Frequency selective filtering of the modulation spectrum and its impact on consonant identification. In: Twenty First Danavox Symposium, pp. 585-599.
6. Christiansen T.-U., Dau T., Greenberg S. Spectro-temporal processing of speech - an information-theoretic framework. Hearing - From Sensory Processing to Perception 2007, 515-523. Springer Verlag, Berlin. B. Kollmeier, G. Klump, V. Hohmann, U. Langemann, M. Mauermann, S. Uppenkamp, J. Verhey (Eds.).
7. Dau T., Wegner O., Mellert V., Kollmeier B. Auditory brainstem responses with optimized chirp signals compensating basilar-membrane dispersion. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2000, 107:1530-1540.
8. Dau T. The importance of cochlear processing for the formation of auditory brainstem and frequency following responses. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2003, 113:936-950.
9. de Boer E. Auditory physics. Physical principles in hearing theory I. Phys. Rep. 1980, 62:87-174.
10. Deng L., Geisler C.-D. A composite auditory model for processing speech sounds. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1987, 82:2001-2012.
11. Don M., Ponton C.-W., Eggermont J.-J., Kwong B. The effects of sensory hearing loss on cochlear filter times estimated from auditory brainstem response latencies. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1998, 104:2280-2289.
12. Dreschler W.-A., Plomp R. Relation between psychophysical data and speech perception for hearing-impaired subjects. I. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1980, 68:1608-1615.
13. Dreschler W.-A., Plomp R. Relations between psychophysical data and speech perception for hearing-impaired subjects. II. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1985, 78:1261-1270.
14. Drullman R., Festen J.-M., Plomp R. Effect of reducing slow temporal modulations on speech reception. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1994, 95:2670-2680.
15. Dubno J.-R., Dirks D.-D. Associations among frequency and temporal resolution and consonant recognition for hearing-impaired listeners. Acta Otolaryngol. Suppl. 1990, 469:23-29.
16. Elberling C., Don M., Cebulla M., Stürzebecher E. Auditory steady-state responses to chirp stimuli based on cochlear traveling wave delay. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2007, 122:2772-2785.
17. Felder E., Schrott-Fischer A. Quantitative evaluation of myelinated nerve fibres and hair cells in cochleae of humans with age-related hightone hearing loss. Hear Res. 1995, 91:19-32.
18. Festen J.-M., Plomp R. Relation between auditory functions in impaired hearing. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1983, 73:652-662.
19. Fitzgibbons P.-J., Wightman F.-L. Gap detection in normal and hearing-impaired listeners. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1982, 72:761-765.
20. Fobel O., Dau T. Searching for the optimal stimulus eliciting auditory brainstem in humans. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2004, 116:2213-2222.
21. Freyman R.-L., Nelson D.-A. Frequency discrimination as a function of signal frequency and level in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. J. Speech Hear. Res. 1991, 34:1371-1386.
22. Gabriel K.-J., Koehnke J., Colburn H.-S. Frequency dependence of binaural performance in listeners with impaired binaural hearing. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1992, 91:336-347.
23. Glasberg B.-R., Moore B.-C.-J. Auditory filter shapes in subjects with unilateral and bilateral cochlear impairments. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1986, 79:1020-1033.
24. Glasberg B.-R., Moore B.-C.-J. Psychoacoustic abilities of subjects with unilateral and bilateral cochlear impairment and their relationship to the ability to understand speech. Scand. Audiol. 1989, 32:1-25.
25. Hall J.-W., Tyler R.-S., Fernandes M.-A. Factors influencing the masking level difference in cochlear hearing-impaired and normal-hearing listeners. J. Speech Hear. Res. 1984, 27:145-154.
26. Helfer K.S., Wilber L.A. Hearing loss, aging, and speech perception in reverberation and noise. J. Speech Hear. Res. 1990, 33:149-155.
27. Hopkins K., Moore B.-C.-J., Stone M.-A. Effects of moderate cochlear hearing loss on the ability to benefit from temporal fine structure information in speech. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2008, 123:1140-1153.
28. Humes L.-E., Dirks D.-D., Bell T.-S., Kincaid G.-E. Recognition of nonsense syllables by hearing-impaired listeners and by noise-masked normal hearers. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1987, 81:765-773.
29. ISO 389-8 Acoustics-Reference Zero for the Calibration of Audiometric Equipment-Part 8: Reference Equivalent Threshold Sound Pressure Levels for Pure Tones and Circumaural Earphones 2004, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva.
30. Kujawa S.-G., Liberman M.-C. Adding insult to injury: Cochlear nerve degeneration after 'Temporary' noise-induced hearing loss. J. Neurosci. 2009, 29:14077-14085.
31. Lee L.-W., Humes L.-E. Loudness functions in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1995, 97:3345.
32. Levitt H. Transformed up-down methods in psychoacoustics. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1971, 49:467-477.
33. Lorenzi C., Gilbert G., Carn H., Garnier S., Moore B.-C.-J. Speech perception problems of the hearing impaired reflect inability to use temporal fine structure. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2006, 103:18866-18869.
34. Moore B.-C.-J. Perceptual Consequences of Cochlear Damage 1995, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
35. Moore B.-C.-J., Skrodzka E. Detection of frequency modulation by hearing-impaired listeners: effects of carrier frequency, modulation rate, and added amplitude modulation. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2002, 111:327-335.
36. Noordhoek I.-M., Hougast T., Festen J.-M. Relations between intelligibility of narrow-band speech and auditory functions, both in the 1-kHz frequency region. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2001, 109:1197-1212.
37. Otte J., Schuknecht H.F., Kerr A.G. Ganglion cell populations in normal and pathological human cochleae. Implications for cochlear implantation. Laryngoscope 1978, LXXXVIII:1231-1246.
38. Pichora-Fuller K.M., Schneider B.A. The effect of interaural delay of the masker on masking-level differences in young and old adults. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1992, 91:2129-2135.
39. Plomp R. Auditory handicap of hearing impairment and the limited benefit of hearing aids. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1978, 63:533-549.
40. Plomp R. Noise, amplification, and compression: considerations of three main issues in hearing aid design. Ear Hear. 1994, 15:2-12.
41. Rance G., Mckay C., Grayden D. Perceptual characterization of children with auditory neuropathy. Ear Hear. 2004, 25:34-46.
42. Ross B., Fujioka T., Tremblay K.L. Aging in binaural hearing begins in mid-life: evidence from cortical auditory-evoked responses to changes in interaural phase. J. Neurosci. 2007, 27:11172-11178.
43. Schneider B.A., Daneman M., Pichora-Fuller M.K. Listening in aging adults: from discourse comprehension to psychoacoustics. Can. J. Exp. Psychol. 2002, 56:139-152.
44. Sek A., Moore B.-C.-J. Frequency discrimination as a function of frequency, measured in several ways. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1995, 97:2479-2486.
45. Steeneken H.-J.-M., Houtgast T. A physical method for measuring speech-transmission quality. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1980, 67:318-326.
46. Strelcyk O., Dau T. Relations between frequency selectivity, temporal fine-structure processing, and speech reception in impaired hearing. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2009, 125:3328-3345.
47. Strelcyk O., Christoforidis D., Dau T. Relation between derived-band auditory brainstem response latencies and behavioral frequency selectivity. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2009, 126:1878-1888.
48. Strouse A., Ashmed D.H., Ohde R.N., Grantham D.W. Temporal processing in the aging auditory system. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1998, 104:2385-2399.
49. Takahashi G.A., Bacon S.P. Modulation detection, modulation masking, and speech understanding in noise in the elderly. J. Speech Hear. Res. 1992, 35:1410-1421.
50. Turner C.W., Nelson D.A. Frequency discrimination in regions of normal and impaired sensitivity. J. Speech Hear. Res. 1982, 25:34-41.
51. Tyler R.S., Summerfield Q., Wood E.J., Fernandes M.A. Psychoacoustic and phonetic temporal processing in normal and hearing-impaired listeners. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1982, 72:740-752.
52. Tyler R.S., Wood E.J., Fernandes M. Frequency resolution and discrimination of constant and dynamic tones in normal and hearing-impaired listeners. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1983, 74:1190-1199.
53. Tyler R.S., Preece J.P., Gantz B.J., Otto S.R. Previous experience as a confounding factor in comparing cochlear-implant processing schemes. J. Speech Hear. Res. 1986, 29:282-287.
54. van Rooij J.C.G.M., Plomp R. Auditive and cognitive factors in speech perception by elderly listeners. II: multivariate analyses. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1990, 88:2611-2624.
55. Wagener K., Josvassen J.L., Ardenkjær R. Design, optimization and evaluation of a Danish sentence test in noise. Int. J. Audiol. 2003, 42:10-17.
56. Wegner O., Dau T. Frequency specificity of chirp-evoked auditory brainstem responses. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2002, 111:1318-1329.
57. Zeng F.G., Kong Y.Y., Michalewski H.J., Starr A. Perceptual consequences of disrupted auditory nerve activity. J. Neurophysiol. 2005, 93:3050-3063.
58. Zurek P.M., Formby C. Frequency-discrimination ability of hearing-impaired listeners. J. Speech Hear. Res. 1981, 24:108-112.
59. Zurek P.-M., Delhorne L.-A. Consonant reception in noise by listeners with mild and moderate sensorineural hearing impairment. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1987, 82:1548-1559.