The role of spectral resolution, working memory, and audibility in explaining variance in susceptibility to temporal envelope distortion

Journal of the American Academy of Audiology

Volumn 25, Issue 6, 2014, Pages 541-548

  Davies Venn, Evelyn ^a   Souza, Pamela ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

^b NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Audibility; Auditory filter bandwidth; Cognition; Compression; Hearing aid amplification; Spectral modulation detection; Spectral resolution; Speech recognition; Temporal envelope distortion; Working memory

Indexed keywords

ACOUSTIC REFLEX; ARTICLE; AUDITORY THRESHOLD; CHILD; DICHOTIC LISTENING; FEMALE; HEARING; HEARING TEST; HUMAN; MALE; NORMAL HUMAN; TASK PERFORMANCE; ADULT; HEARING AID; HEARING IMPAIRMENT; PATHOPHYSIOLOGY; SHORT TERM MEMORY; STATISTICAL MODEL;

ADULT; AUDITORY PERCEPTION; AUDITORY THRESHOLD; HEARING; HEARING AIDS; HEARING LOSS; HUMANS; LINEAR MODELS; MEMORY, SHORT-TERM;

EID: 84907931155     PISSN: 10500545     EISSN: 21573107     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3766/jaaa.25.6.9     Document Type: Article

References (63)

1. Akeroyd MA. (2008) Are individual differences in speech reception related to individual differences in cognitive ability? A survey of twenty experimental studies with normal and hearing-impaired adults. Int J Audiol 47(Suppl 2):S53-S71.
2. American National Standards Institute (ANSI). (1997) Methods for Calculation of the Speech Intelligibility Index (SII 97). S3.5-1997. New York, NY: ANSI.
3. Bailey H, Dunlosky J, Kane MJ. (2008) Why does working memory span predict complex cognition? Testing the strategy affordance hypothesis. Mem Cognit 36(8):1383-1390.
4. Bor S, Souza P, Wright R. (2008) Multichannel compression: effects of reduced spectral contrast on vowel identification. J Speech Lang Hear Res 51(5):1315-1327.
5. Byrne D, Dillon H. (1986) The National Acoustic Laboratories' (NAL) new procedure for selecting the gain and frequency response of a hearing aid. Ear Hear 7(4):257-265.
6. Conway AR, Kane MJ, Bunting MF, Hambrick DZ, Wilhelm O, Engle RW. (2005) Working memory span tasks: A methodological review and user's guide. Psychon Bull Rev 12(5): 769-786.
7. Crandell CC. (1991) Individual differences in speech recognition ability: implications for hearing aid selection. Ear Hear 12(6 Suppl):100S-108S.
8. Daneman M, Carpenter, PA. (1980). Individual differences in working memory and reading. J Verb Learn Verb Behav 19(4):450-466.
9. Davies-Venn E, Souza P, Fabry D. (2007) Speech and music quality ratings for linear and nonlinear hearing aid circuitry. J Am Acad Audiol 18(8):688-699.
10. Davies-Venn E, Souza P, Brennan M, Stecker GC. (2009) Effects of audibility and multichannel wide dynamic range compression on consonant recognition for listeners with severe hearing loss. Ear Hear 30(5):494-504.
11. De Neys W, d'Ydewalle G, Schaeken W, Vos G. (2002) A Dutch, computerized and group administrable adaptation of the operation span test. Psychol Belg 42:177-190.
12. de Boer J, Thornton AR, Krumbholz K. (2012) What is the role of the medial olivocochlear system in speech-in-noise processing? J Neurophysiol 107(5):1301-1312.
13. Desjardins JL. (2011) Age-Related Changes in Listening Effort for Various Types of Masker Noises. Communication Sciences and Disorders - Dissertations and Theses. Paper 14.
14. Dubno JR, Schaefer AB. (1992) Comparison of frequency selectivity and consonant recognition among hearing-impaired and masked normal-hearing listeners. J Acoust Soc Am 91(4 Pt 1): 2110-2121.
15. Dubno JR, Dirks DD. (1989) Auditory filter characteristics and consonant recognition for hearing-impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am 85(4):1666-1675.
16. Engle RW, Cantor J, Carullo JJ. (1992) Individual differences in working memory and comprehension: a test of four hypotheses. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 18(5):972-992.
17. Folstein MF, Folstein SE, McHugh PR. (1975) "Mini-mental state". A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J Psychiatr Res 12(3):189-198.
18. Foo C, Rudner M, Ro? nnberg J, Lunner T. (2007) Recognition of speech in noise with new hearing instrument compression release settings requires explicit cognitive storage and processing capacity. J Am Acad Audiol 18(7):618-631.
19. Fortune TW, Woodruff BD, Preves DA. (1994) A new technique for quantifying temporal envelope contrasts. Ear Hear 15(1):93-99.
20. Gatehouse S, Naylor G, Elberling C. (2003) Benefits from hearing aids in relation to the interaction between the user and the environment. Int J Audiol 42(Suppl 1):S77-S85.
21. Gatehouse S, Naylor G, Elberling C. (2006) Linear and nonlinear hearing aid fittings-1. Patterns of benefit. Int J Audiol 45(3): 130-152.
22. Gilbert G, Akeroyd MA, Gatehouse S. (2008) Discrimination of release time constants in hearing-aid compressors. Int J Audiol 47(4):189-198.
23. Hawkins DB, Walden BE, Montgomery A, Prosek RA. (1987) Description and validation of an LDL procedure designed to select SSPL90. Ear Hear 8(3):162-169.
24. Henry BA, Turner CW, Behrens A. (2005) Spectral peak resolution and speech recognition in quiet: normal hearing, hearing impaired, and cochlear implant listeners. J AcoustSoc Am 118(2):1111-1121.
25. Hickok G, Poeppel D. (2007) The cortical organization of speech processing. Nat Rev Neurosci 8(5):393-402.
26. Humes LE, Roberts L. (1990) Speech-recognition difficulties of the hearing-impaired elderly: the contributions of audibility. J Speech Hear Res 33(4):726-735.
27. Humes LE, Watson BU, Christensen LA, Cokely CG, Halling DC, Lee L. (1994) Factors associated with individual differences in clinical measures of speech recognition among the elderly. J Speech Hear Res 37(2):465-474.
28. Hwang JH, Li CW,Wu CW, Chen JH, Liu TC. (2007) Aging effects on the activation of the auditory cortex during binaural speech listening in white noise: an fMRI study. Audiol Neurootol 12(5):285-294.
29. Jenstad LM, Souza PE. (2007) Temporal envelope changes of compression and speech rate: combined effects on recognition for older
30. Jenstad LM, Souza PE. (2005) Quantifying the effect of compression hearing aid release time on speech acoustics and intelligibility. J Speech Lang Hear Res 48(3):651-667.
31. Jerger J. (1970) Clinical experience with impedance audiometry. Arch Otolaryngol 92(4):311-324.
32. Kam AC, Wong LL. (1999) Comparison of performance with wide dynamic range compression and linear amplification. J Am Acad Audiol 10(8):445-457.
33. Kates JM. (2010) Understanding compression: modeling the effects of dynamic-range -compression in hearing aids. Int J Audiol 49(6):395-409.
34. Kuk F. (2000) Recent approaches to fitting nonlinear hearing aids. In Valente M, Hosford-Dunn H, Roeser RJ, eds. Audiology: Diagnosis, Treatment, and Practice Management, vol. 3. NewYork, NY: adults. J Speech Lang Hear Res 50(5):1123-1138. Thieme Medical Publisher, 261-290.
35. Leek MR, Summers V. (1996) Reduced frequency selectivity and the preservation of spectral contrast in noise. J Acoust Soc Am 100(3):1796-1806.
36. Levitt H. (1971) Transformed up-down methods in psychoacoustics. J Acoust Soc Am 49(2, Suppl 2):467.
37. Lunner T. (2003) Cognitive function in relation to hearing aid use. Int J Audiol 42(Suppl 1):S49-S58.
38. Lunner T, Sundewall-Thoré n E. (2007) Interactions between cognition, compression, and listening conditions: effects on speech-in- noise performance in a two-channel hearing aid. J Am Acad Audiol 18(7):604-617.
39. Miller GA, Nicely PE. (1955) An analysis of perceptual confusions among some English consonants. J Acoust Soc Am 27(2):338-352.
40. Moore BC. (2008) The choice of compression speed in hearing AIDS: theoretical and practical considerations and the role of individual differences. Trends Amplif 12(2):103-112.
41. Patterson RD, Nimmo-Smith I, Weber DL, Milroy R. (1982) The deterioration of hearing with age: frequency selectivity, the critical ratio, the audiogram, and speech threshold. J Acoust Soc Am 72(6):1788-1803.
42. Pittman AL, Stelmachowicz PG. (2000) Perception of voiceless fricatives by normal-hearing and hearing-impaired children and adults. J Speech Lang Hear Res 43(6):1389-1401.
43. Rosen S. (1992) Temporal information in speech: acoustic, auditory and linguistic aspects. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 336(1278):367-373.
44. Rosen S, Baker RJ. (1994) Characterising auditory filter nonlinearity. Hear Res 73(2):231-243.
45. Rosen S, Baker RJ, Darling A. (1998) Auditory filter nonlinearity at 2 kHz in normal hearing listeners. J Acoust Soc Am 103(5 Pt 1): 2539-2550.
46. Ro? nnberg J, Rudner M, Foo C, Lunner T. (2008) Cognition counts: a working memory system for ease of language understanding (ELU) Int J Audiol 47(1, Suppl 2):S99-S105.
47. Ro? nnberg J, Arlinger S, Lyxell B, Kinnefors C. (1989) Visual evoked potentials: relation to adult speechreading and cognitive function. J Speech Hear Res 32(4):725-735.
48. Rudner M, Foo C, Ro?nnberg J, Lunner T. (2009) Cognition and aided speech recognition in noise: specific role for cognitive factors following nine-week experience with adjusted compression settings in hearing aids. Scand J Psychol 50(5):405-418.
49. Rudner M, Foo C, Sundewall-Thorén E, Lunner T, Ro? nnberg J. (2008) Phonological mismatch and explicit cognitive processing in a sample of 102 hearing-aid users. Int J Audiol 47(Suppl 2): S91-S98.
50. Shannon RV. (2002) The relative importance of amplitude, temporal, and spectral cues for cochlear implant processor design. Am J Audiol 11(2):124-127.
51. Shannon RV, Zeng FG, Kamath V, Wygonski J, Ekelid M. (1995) Speech recognition with primarily temporal cues. Science 270(5234): 303-304.
52. Sherbecoe RL, Studebaker GA. (2004) Supplementary formulas and tables for calculating and interconverting speech recognition scores in transformed arcsine units. Int J Audiol 43(8):442-448.
53. Smith DW, Aouad RK, Keil A. (2012) Cognitive task demands modulate the sensitivity of the human cochlea. Front Psychol 3:30.
54. Souza P. (2002) Effects of compression on speech acoustics, intelligibility, and sound quality. Trends Amplif 6(4):131-165.
55. Souza P, Sirow L. (2012a) Incorporating Cognitive Tests in the Clinic. Boston, MA: American Academy of Audiology.
56. Souza P, Wright R, Bor S. (2012b) Consequences of broad auditory filters for identification of multichannel-compressed vowels. J Speech Lang Hear Res 55(2):474-486.
57. Souza P, Hoover E, Gallun F. (2012c) Application of the envelope difference index to spectrally sparse speech. J Speech Lang Hear Res 55(3):824-837.
58. Stelmachowicz P, Lewis D, Creutz T. (1994) Situational Hearing- Aid Response Profile (SHARP, version 6.0). Omaha, NE: Boys Town National Center.
59. Stone MA, Moore BCJ. (2007) Quantifying the effects of fast-acting compression on the envelope of speech. J Acoust Soc Am 121(3): 1654-1664.
60. Stone MA, Glasberg BR, Moore BC. (1992) Simplified measurement of auditory filter shapes using the notched-noise method. Br J Audiol 26(6):329-334.
61. Studebaker GA. (1985) A "rationalized" arcsine transform. J Speech Hear Res 28(3):455-462.
62. Walaszek J. (2008). Effects of compression in hearing aids on the envelope of the speech signal: Signal based measures of the sideeffects of the compression and their relation to speech intelligibility [unpublishedmaster's thesis]. TechnicalUniversity of Denmark, Lingby.
63. Wong P.C. Jin J.X. Gunasekera G.M. Abel R. Lee E.R. Dhar S. 2009 Aging and cortical mechanisms of speech perception in noise. Neuropsychologia 47 3 693-703