Forty-two normal older adults, aged 60–75 years, were tested on a battery that included the Speech Perception in Noise (SPIN) test, conventional, and experimental pure tone sensitivity, the W-22 test in quiet and noise, open- and closed-set identification of synthesized syllables that differed in the place of articulation feature, syllable discrimination, the Block Design subtest of the WAIS and the Concept Formation subtest of the Woodcock-Johnson Psychoeducational Battery. Results showed considerable variability on all measures. Only performance on the W-22 Test in noise and sensitivity at 4 kHz were significantly related to absolute levels of performance on low- (LP) and high-predictability (HP) SPIN test sentences. No test variables were significantly related to relative performance on HP and LP sentences. The differing patterns of results for different subjects of this homogeneous sample having excellent language skills suggested that: (1) a larger study in which linguistic abilities were systematically manipulated might produce a different outcome and (2) data for 400–500 similar older adults might show significant but differing patterns of processing auditory stimuli, particularly in the extent to which cognitive processes contribute to listening. [Work supported, in part, by NSF.]

Three synthesized syllables differing in place of articulation ([bɑ], [dɑ], and [gɑ]) were used in a three-alternative identification task. Preliminary trials established the range of stimulus levels at which each S's performance, for each syllable, varied from below 50% to nearly 100% correct. Each of the three syllables was presented at five different intensities differing in 5-dB steps. The three syllables and the five levels for each syllable were presented in intermixed random orders. Listeners (18–23 and 60–75 years old) all had normal hearing for their ages. Syllable identification thresholds (i.e., levels required for 50% correct performance) were higher for the older adults, as might be expected because of their poorer sensitivity. Older listeners also exhibited more shallow identification functions—an outcome that cannot be attributed to sensitivity differences since stimulus levels were adjusted for individual subjects. Possible explanations for these shallow slopes are considered. [Work supported, in part, by NSF.]