Spectrotemporal Modulation Sensitivity As a Predictor of Speech-Reception Performance in Noise With Hearing Aids
Overview
Authors
Affiliations
The audiogram predicts <30% of the variance in speech-reception thresholds (SRTs) for hearing-impaired (HI) listeners fitted with individualized frequency-dependent gain. The remaining variance could reflect suprathreshold distortion in the auditory pathways or nonauditory factors such as cognitive processing. The relationship between a measure of suprathreshold auditory function-spectrotemporal modulation (STM) sensitivity-and SRTs in noise was examined for 154 HI listeners fitted with individualized frequency-specific gain. SRTs were measured for 65-dB SPL sentences presented in speech-weighted noise or four-talker babble to an individually programmed master hearing aid, with the output of an ear-simulating coupler played through insert earphones. Modulation-depth detection thresholds were measured over headphones for STM (2cycles/octave density, 4-Hz rate) applied to an 85-dB SPL, 2-kHz lowpass-filtered pink-noise carrier. SRTs were correlated with both the high-frequency (2-6 kHz) pure-tone average (HFA; R= .31) and STM sensitivity (R= .28). Combined with the HFA, STM sensitivity significantly improved the SRT prediction (ΔR= .13; total R= .44). The remaining unaccounted variance might be attributable to variability in cognitive function and other dimensions of suprathreshold distortion. STM sensitivity was most critical in predicting SRTs for listeners < 65 years old or with HFA <53 dB HL. Results are discussed in the context of previous work suggesting that STM sensitivity for low rates and low-frequency carriers is impaired by a reduced ability to use temporal fine-structure information to detect dynamic spectra. STM detection is a fast test of suprathreshold auditory function for frequencies <2 kHz that complements the HFA to predict variability in hearing-aid outcomes for speech perception in noise.
Feasibility and Repeatability of an Abbreviated Auditory Perceptual and Cognitive Test Battery.
Cherri D, Ozmeral E, Gallun F, Seitz A, Eddins D J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2024; 68(2):719-739.
PMID: 39700469 PMC: 11842072. DOI: 10.1044/2024_JSLHR-23-00590.
Adaptation to Noise in Spectrotemporal Modulation Detection and Word Recognition.
Lopez-Ramos D, Marrufo-Perez M, Eustaquio-Martin A, Lopez-Bascuas L, Lopez-Poveda E Trends Hear. 2024; 28:23312165241266322.
PMID: 39267369 PMC: 11401146. DOI: 10.1177/23312165241266322.
Is Recognition of Speech in Noise Related to Memory Disruption Caused by Irrelevant Sound?.
Oberfeld D, Staab K, Kattner F, Ellermeier W Trends Hear. 2024; 28:23312165241262517.
PMID: 39051688 PMC: 11273587. DOI: 10.1177/23312165241262517.
Windle R, Dillon H, Heinrich A Front Neurol. 2023; 14:1122420.
PMID: 37409017 PMC: 10318159. DOI: 10.3389/fneur.2023.1122420.
Human-Like Modulation Sensitivity Emerging through Optimization to Natural Sound Recognition.
Koumura T, Terashima H, Furukawa S J Neurosci. 2023; 43(21):3876-3894.
PMID: 37185101 PMC: 10219008. DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2002-22.2023.