The purpose of the present study was to examine the benefits of providing audible speech to listeners with sensorineural hearing loss when the speech is presented in a background noise. Previous studies have shown that when listeners have a severe hearing loss in the higher frequencies, providing audible speech (in a quiet background) to these higher frequencies usually results in no improvement in speech recognition. In the present experiments, speech was presented in a background of multitalker babble to listeners with various severities of hearing loss. The signal was low-pass filtered at numerous cutoff frequencies and speech recognition was measured as additional high-frequency speech information was provided to the hearing-impaired listeners. It was found in all cases, regardless of hearing loss or frequency range, that providing audible speech resulted in an increase in recognition score. The change in recognition as the cutoff frequency was increased, along with the amount of audible speech information in each condition (articulation index), was used to calculate the “efficiency” of providing audible speech. Efficiencies were positive for all degrees of hearing loss. However, the gains in recognition were small, and the maximum score obtained by an listener was low, due to the noise background. An analysis of error patterns showed that due to the limited speech audibility in a noise background, even severely impaired listeners used additional speech audibility in the high frequencies to improve their perception of the “easier” features of speech including voicing.

1.
ANSI (1969). ANSI S3.5-1969, “American National Standard: Methods for the Calculation of the Articulation Index” (American National Standards Institute, New York).
2.
ANSI (1996). ANSI S3.66-1996, “American National Standard: Specifications for Audiometers” (American National Standards Institute, New York).
3.
ANSI (R1997), ANSI S3.6-1997, “American National Standard: Methods for the Calculation of the Articulation Index” (American National Standards Institute, New York).
4.
Ching
,
T.
,
Dillon
,
H.
, and
Byrne
,
D.
(
1998
). “
Speech recognition of hearing-impaired listeners: Predictions from audibility and the limited role of high-frequency amplification
,”
J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
103
,
1128
1140
.
5.
Grant
,
K. W.
, and
Walden
,
B. E.
(
1996
). “
Evaluating the articulation index for auditory-visual consonant recognition
,”
J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
100
,
2415
2424
.
6.
Hogan
,
C.
, and
Turner
,
C. W.
(
1998
). “
High-frequency amplification: Benefits for hearing-impaired listeners
,”
J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
104
,
432
441
.
7.
Rankovic
,
C. M.
(
1991
). “
An application of the Articulation Index to hearing-aid fitting
,”
J. Speech Hear. Res.
27
,
391
402
.
8.
Skinner
,
M. W.
(
1980
). “
Speech intelligibility in noise-induced hearing loss: Effects of high-frequency compensation
,”
J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
67
,
306
317
.
9.
Turner
,
C. W.
(
1999
). “
The limits of high-frequency amplification
,”
Hear. J.
52
,
10
14
.
10.
Turner
,
C. W.
, and
Brus
,
S.
(
2001
). “
Providing low- and mid-frequency speech information to listeners with sensorineural hearing loss
,”
J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
109
,
2999
3006
.
11.
Turner
,
C. W.
, and
Cummings
,
K. J.
(
1999
). “
Speech audibility for listeners with high-frequency hearing loss
,”
Am. J. Audiol.
8
,
47
56
.
12.
Van Tasell
,
D. J.
(
1993
). “
Hearing loss, speech and hearing aids
,”
J. Speech Hear. Res.
36
,
228
244
.
13.
Vickers
,
D. A.
,
Moore
,
B. C. J.
, and
Baer
,
T.
(
2001
). “
Effects of low-pass filtering on the intelligibility of speech in quiet for people with and without dead regions at high frequencies
,”
J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
110
,
1164
1175
.
14.
Wang
,
M. D.
, and
Bilger
,
R. C.
(
1973
). “
Consonant recognition in noise, a study of perceptual confusions
,”
J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
54
,
1248
1266
.
This content is only available via PDF.
You do not currently have access to this content.