Stop-consonant recognition for normal-hearing listeners and listeners with high-frequency hearing loss. I: The contribution of selected frequency regions

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to specify the contribution of certain frequency regions to consonant place perception for normal-hearing listeners and listeners with high-frequency hearing loss, and to characterize the differences in stop-consonant place perception among these listeners. Stop-consonant recognition and error patterns were examined at various speech-presentation levels and under conditions of low- and high-pass filtering. Subjects included 18 normal-hearing listeners and a homogeneous group of 10 young, hearing-impaired individuals with high-frequency sensorineural hearing loss. Differential filtering effects on consonant place perception were consistent with the spectral composition of acoustic cues. Differences in consonant recognition and error patterns between normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners were observed when the stimulus bandwidth included regions of threshold elevation for the hearing-impaired listeners. Thus place-perception differences among listeners are, for the most part, associated with stimulus bandwidths corresponding to regions of hearing loss.

Speech Evoked Potentials: From the Laboratory to the Clinic

“…For example, Bilger and Wang found that listeners with normal hearing or mild hearing loss perceive speech well; those with flat or rising hearing loss perform well on the features of sibilance, duration, and voicing, but tend to have difficulty with consonant place, consonant continuance, and nasality; and listeners with sloping, high-frequency hearing loss tend to have significant difficulty with sibilance, and performance on voicing is variable. Because many individuals with sensorineural hearing loss have a sloping hearing loss configuration, consonant place of articulation contrasts (such as /ba/ versus /da/) are often particularly difficult (Boothroyd, 1984;Dubno, et al, 1982Dubno, et al, , 1989Gordon, 1987;Walden, 1984). The effects of sensorineural hearing loss, however, are not limited to audibility alone.…”

“…Other effects may include widened critical bands, decreased frequency selectivity, altered temporal integration times, and recruitment (Festen & Plomp, 1983;Scharf, 1978;Thibodeau, 1991). For this reason, speech perception is often studied in normal listeners using noise masking techniques (Bell, et al, 1989;Fabry & van Tasell, 1986;Humes, et al, 1987) or filtered speech (Bell, et al, 1989;Dubno, et al, 1989;Fabry & van Tasell, 1986;French & Steinberg, 1947;Kryter, 1960;Miller & Nicely, 1955;Walden, et al, 1981, Wang, et al, 1978 to try to model hearing loss. These methods allow the researcher to control for some of the variability seen when testing listeners with sensorineural hearing loss.…”

Effects of Frequency Compression and Frequency Transposition on Fricative and Affricate Perception in Listeners With Normal Hearing and Mild to Moderate Hearing Loss

“…For these individuals, arguments for the use of frequency lowering are relatively easy to make since speech perception deficits increase as high-frequency audibility decreases (Turner & Robb, 1987; Dubno et al ., 1989; Ching et al ., 1998; Horwitz et al ., 2002). However, the relationship between severity of SNHL and amount of frequency lowering seems to be give and take (cf.…”

Individual Sensitivity to Spectral and Temporal Cues in Listeners With Hearing Impairment

“…Some listeners with hearing loss have broadened auditory filters (Faulkner, Rosen, & Moore, 1990; Glasberg & Moore, 1986; Souza, Wright, & Bor, 2012) which could limit their ability to resolve and use spectral cues. That limitation is supported by studies which show that listeners with hearing loss have difficulty identifying consonants when the frequency content of the consonant falls into a region of broadened auditory filters (Dubno, Dirks, & Ellison, 1989; Preminger & Wiley, 1985), and have more difficulty identifying vowels based on formant patterns as compared to the average performance of listeners with normal hearing (Leek & Summers, 1996; Molis & Leek, 2011; Souza, Wright, et al, 2012; Turner & Henn, 1989). Other studies show that formant transitions —where formant frequency varies dynamically across the coarticulation point of two sounds—may be particularly difficult for listeners with hearing loss (Carpenter & Shahin, 2013; Coez et al, 2010; Hedrick, 1997; Hedrick & Younger, 2007; Stelmachowicz, Kopun, Mace, Lewis, & Nittrouer, 1995; Turner, Smith, Aldridge, & Stewart, 1997; Zeng & Turner, 1990).…”