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}
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.
Trends in HearingAUDIOLOGY & 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.