对稳定噪音的敏感性在很大程度上解释了人工耳蜗使用者对动态掩蔽物的敏感性,但在正常听力的听者中则不然

IF 2.6 2区 医学 Q1 AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY
Biao Chen, Ying Shi, Ying Kong, Jingyuan Chen, Lifang Zhang, Yongxin Li, John J. Galvin, Qian-Jie Fu
{"title":"对稳定噪音的敏感性在很大程度上解释了人工耳蜗使用者对动态掩蔽物的敏感性,但在正常听力的听者中则不然","authors":"Biao Chen, Ying Shi, Ying Kong, Jingyuan Chen, Lifang Zhang, Yongxin Li, John J. Galvin, Qian-Jie Fu","doi":"10.1177/23312165231205713","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Different from normal-hearing (NH) listeners, speech recognition thresholds (SRTs) in cochlear implant (CI) users are typically poorer with dynamic maskers than with speech-spectrum noise (SSN). The effectiveness of different masker types may depend on their acoustic and linguistic characteristics. The goal of the present study was to evaluate the effectiveness of different masker types with varying acoustic and linguistic properties in CI and NH listeners. SRTs were measured with nine maskers, including SSN, dynamic nonspeech maskers, and speech maskers with or without lexical content. Results showed that CI users performed significantly poorer than NH listeners with all maskers. NH listeners were much more sensitive to masker type than were CI users. Relative to SSN, NH listeners experienced significant masking release for most maskers, which could be well explained by the glimpse proportion, especially for maskers containing similar cues related to fundamental frequency or lexical content. In contrast, CI users generally experienced negative masking release. There was significant intercorrelation among the maskers for CI users’ SRTs but much less so for NH listeners’ SRTs. Principal component analysis showed that one factor explained 72% of the variance in CI users’ SRTs but only 55% in NH listeners’ SRTs across all maskers. Taken together, the results suggest that SRTs in SSN largely accounted for the variability in CI users’ SRTs with dynamic maskers. Different from NH listeners, CI users appear to be more susceptible to energetic masking and do not experience a release from masking with dynamic envelopes or speech maskers.","PeriodicalId":48678,"journal":{"name":"Trends in Hearing","volume":"16 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Susceptibility to Steady Noise Largely Explains Susceptibility to Dynamic Maskers in Cochlear Implant Users, but not in Normal-Hearing Listeners\",\"authors\":\"Biao Chen, Ying Shi, Ying Kong, Jingyuan Chen, Lifang Zhang, Yongxin Li, John J. Galvin, Qian-Jie Fu\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/23312165231205713\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Different from normal-hearing (NH) listeners, speech recognition thresholds (SRTs) in cochlear implant (CI) users are typically poorer with dynamic maskers than with speech-spectrum noise (SSN). The effectiveness of different masker types may depend on their acoustic and linguistic characteristics. The goal of the present study was to evaluate the effectiveness of different masker types with varying acoustic and linguistic properties in CI and NH listeners. SRTs were measured with nine maskers, including SSN, dynamic nonspeech maskers, and speech maskers with or without lexical content. Results showed that CI users performed significantly poorer than NH listeners with all maskers. NH listeners were much more sensitive to masker type than were CI users. Relative to SSN, NH listeners experienced significant masking release for most maskers, which could be well explained by the glimpse proportion, especially for maskers containing similar cues related to fundamental frequency or lexical content. In contrast, CI users generally experienced negative masking release. There was significant intercorrelation among the maskers for CI users’ SRTs but much less so for NH listeners’ SRTs. Principal component analysis showed that one factor explained 72% of the variance in CI users’ SRTs but only 55% in NH listeners’ SRTs across all maskers. Taken together, the results suggest that SRTs in SSN largely accounted for the variability in CI users’ SRTs with dynamic maskers. Different from NH listeners, CI users appear to be more susceptible to energetic masking and do not experience a release from masking with dynamic envelopes or speech maskers.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48678,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Trends in Hearing\",\"volume\":\"16 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Trends in Hearing\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/23312165231205713\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Trends in Hearing","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/23312165231205713","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

与正常听力(NH)听者不同,人工耳蜗(CI)使用者的语音识别阈值(srt)通常在动态掩蔽器的作用下低于语音频谱噪声(SSN)。不同类型面具的效果可能取决于它们的声学和语言特征。本研究的目的是评估具有不同声学和语言特性的不同掩蔽器类型在CI和NH听者中的有效性。srt用9个掩码来测量,包括SSN、动态非语音掩码和有或没有词汇内容的语音掩码。结果表明,CI使用者的表现明显低于全掩码的NH听众。NH听众比CI用户对掩码类型更敏感。相对于SSN, NH听者对大多数掩码都经历了显著的掩码释放,这可以用瞥见比例很好地解释,特别是对于包含与基本频率或词汇内容相关的类似线索的掩码。相比之下,CI用户通常会经历负面的屏蔽释放。在CI使用者的srt中,掩蔽因子之间存在显著的相互关系,而在NH听者的srt中,这种相互关系要小得多。主成分分析表明,一个因素解释了所有蒙面者中CI使用者的srt中72%的差异,而NH听者的srt中只有55%的差异。综上所述,结果表明SSN的srt在很大程度上解释了CI用户使用动态掩蔽器时srt的变异性。与NH听众不同,CI用户似乎更容易受到能量掩蔽的影响,并且不会从动态信封或语音掩蔽器中解脱出来。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Susceptibility to Steady Noise Largely Explains Susceptibility to Dynamic Maskers in Cochlear Implant Users, but not in Normal-Hearing Listeners
Different from normal-hearing (NH) listeners, speech recognition thresholds (SRTs) in cochlear implant (CI) users are typically poorer with dynamic maskers than with speech-spectrum noise (SSN). The effectiveness of different masker types may depend on their acoustic and linguistic characteristics. The goal of the present study was to evaluate the effectiveness of different masker types with varying acoustic and linguistic properties in CI and NH listeners. SRTs were measured with nine maskers, including SSN, dynamic nonspeech maskers, and speech maskers with or without lexical content. Results showed that CI users performed significantly poorer than NH listeners with all maskers. NH listeners were much more sensitive to masker type than were CI users. Relative to SSN, NH listeners experienced significant masking release for most maskers, which could be well explained by the glimpse proportion, especially for maskers containing similar cues related to fundamental frequency or lexical content. In contrast, CI users generally experienced negative masking release. There was significant intercorrelation among the maskers for CI users’ SRTs but much less so for NH listeners’ SRTs. Principal component analysis showed that one factor explained 72% of the variance in CI users’ SRTs but only 55% in NH listeners’ SRTs across all maskers. Taken together, the results suggest that SRTs in SSN largely accounted for the variability in CI users’ SRTs with dynamic maskers. Different from NH listeners, CI users appear to be more susceptible to energetic masking and do not experience a release from masking with dynamic envelopes or speech maskers.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Trends in Hearing
Trends in Hearing AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGYOTORH-OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
11.10%
发文量
44
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: Trends in Hearing is an open access journal completely dedicated to publishing original research and reviews focusing on human hearing, hearing loss, hearing aids, auditory implants, and aural rehabilitation. Under its former name, Trends in Amplification, the journal established itself as a forum for concise explorations of all areas of translational hearing research by leaders in the field. Trends in Hearing has now expanded its focus to include original research articles, with the goal of becoming the premier venue for research related to human hearing and hearing loss.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信