There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Recent studies with adults have suggested that amplification at 4 kHz and above fails to improve speech recognition and may even degrade performance when high-frequency thresholds exceed 50-60 dB HL. This study examined the extent to which high frequencies can provide useful information for fricative perception for normal-hearing and hearing-impaired children and adults. Eighty subjects (20 per group) participated. Nonsense syllables containing the phonemes /s/, /f/, and /O/, produced by a male, female, and child talker, were low-pass filtered at 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 9 kHz. Frequency shaping was provided for the hearing-impaired subjects only. Results revealed significant differences in recognition between the four groups of subjects. Specifically, both groups of children performed more poorly than their adult counterparts at similar bandwidths. Likewise, both hearing-impaired groups performed more poorly than their normal-hearing counterparts. In addition, significant talker effects for /s/ were observed. For the male talker, optimum performance was reached at a bandwidth of approximately 4-5 kHz, whereas optimum performance for the female and child talkers did not occur until a bandwidth of 9 kHz.

Related collections

Most cited references 37

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Speech recognition of hearing-impaired listeners: predictions from audibility and the limited role of high-frequency amplification.

Patricia T Y Ching, D Byrne, Kiran Dillon (1998)

Two experiments were conducted to examine the relationship between audibility and speech recognition for individuals with sensorineural hearing losses ranging from mild to profound degrees. Speech scores measured using filtered sentences were compared to predictions based on the Speech Intelligibility Index (SII). The SII greatly overpredicted performance at high sensation levels, and for many listeners, it underpredicted performance at low sensation levels. To improve predictive accuracy, the SII needed to be modified. Scaling the index by a multiplicative proficiency factor was found to be inappropriate, and alternative modifications were explored. The data were best fitted using a method that combined the standard level distortion factor (which accounted for decrease in speech intelligibility at high presentation levels based on measurements of normal-hearing people) with individual frequency-dependent proficiency. This method was evaluated using broadband sentences and nonsense syllables tests. Results indicate that audibility cannot adequately explain speech recognition of many hearing-impaired listeners. Considerable variations from audibility-based predictions remained, especially for people with severe losses listening at high sensation levels. The data suggest that, contrary to the basis of the SII, information contained in each frequency band is not strictly additive. The data also suggest that for people with severe or profound losses at the high frequencies, amplification should only achieve a low or zero sensation level at this region, contrary to the implications of the unmodified SII.

0 comments Cited 33 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

High-frequency audibility: benefits for hearing-impaired listeners.

Marie C. Hogan, Hugo C. Turner (1998)

The present study was a systematic investigation of the benefit of providing hearing-impaired listeners with audible high-frequency speech information. Five normal-hearing and nine high-frequency hearing-impaired listeners identified nonsense syllables that were low-pass filtered at a number of cutoff frequencies. As a means of quantifying audibility for each condition, Articulation Index (AI) was calculated for each condition for each listener. Most hearing-impaired listeners demonstrated an improvement in speech recognition as additional audible high-frequency information was provided. In some cases for more severely impaired listeners, increasing the audibility of high-frequency speech information resulted in no further improvement in speech recognition, or even decreases in speech recognition. A new measure of how well hearing-impaired listeners used information within specific frequency bands called "efficiency" was devised. This measure compared the benefit of providing a given increase in speech audibility to a hearing-impaired listener to the benefit observed in normal-hearing listeners for the same increase in speech audibility. Efficiencies were calculated using the old AI method and the new AI method (which takes into account the effects of high speech presentation levels). There was a clear pattern in the results suggesting that as the degree of hearing loss at a given frequency increased beyond 55 dB HL, the efficacy of providing additional audibility to that frequency region was diminished, especially when this degree of hearing loss was present at frequencies of 4000 Hz and above. A comparison of analyses from the "old" and "new" AI procedures suggests that some, but not all, of the deficiencies of speech recognition in these listeners was due to high presentation levels.