The speech understanding of persons with “flat” hearing loss (HI) was compared to a normal-hearing (NH) control group to examine how hearing loss affects the contribution of speech information in various frequency regions. Speech understanding in noise was assessed at multiple low- and high-pass filter cutoff frequencies. Noise levels were chosen to ensure that the noise, rather than quiet thresholds, determined audibility. The performance of HI subjects was compared to a NH group listening at the same signal-to-noise ratio and a comparable presentation level. Although absolute speech scores for the HI group were reduced, performance improvements as the speech and noise bandwidth increased were comparable between groups. These data suggest that the presence of hearing loss results in a uniform, rather than frequency-specific, deficit in the contribution of speech information. Measures of auditory thresholds in noise and speech intelligibility index (SII) calculations were also performed. These data suggest that differences in performance between the HI and NH groups are due primarily to audibility differences between groups. Measures of auditory thresholds in noise showed the “effective masking spectrum” of the noise was greater for the HI than the NH subjects.

1.
ANSI (1969). ANSI S3.5-1969, “Methods for the calculation of the articulation index” (American National Standards Institute, New York).
2.
ANSI (1997). ANSI S3.5-1997, “The calculation of the speech intelligibility index” (American National Standards Institute, New York).
3.
ANSI (1996). ANSI S3.6-1996, “Specifications for audiometers” (American National Standards Institute, New York).
4.
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association
(
1978
). “
Guidelines for manual puretone audiometry
,”
ASHA
20
,
297
301
.
5.
Amos, N. (2001). “The contribution of high frequencies to speech recognition in sensorineural hearing loss,” unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University.
6.
Baer
,
T.
,
Moore
,
B.
, and
Kluk
,
K.
(
2002
). “
Effects of low pass filtering on the intelligibility of speech in noise for people with and without dead regions at the high frequencies
,”
J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
112
,
1133
1144
.
7.
Boothroyd
,
A.
(
1967
). “
The discrimination by partially hearing children of frequency distorted speech
,”
Inter. Audiol.
6
(
2
),
136
145
.
8.
Boothroyd, A. (1968). “Selection of hearing aids for children,” unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Manchester, England.
9.
Boothroyd, A. (1978). “Speech perception and sensorineural hearing loss,” in Auditory Management of Hearing-Impaired Children, edited by M. Ross and T. Giolas (University Park, Baltimore), pp. 117–143.
10.
Ching
,
T. Y.
,
Dillion
,
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
.
11.
Ching
,
T. Y.
,
Dillion
,
H.
,
Katsch
,
R.
, and
Byrne
,
D.
(
2001
). “
Maximising effective audibility in hearing aid fittings
,”
Ear Hear.
22
,
212
224
.
12.
Cornelisse
,
L.
,
Seewald
,
R.
, and
Jamieson
,
D.
(
1995
). “
The input/output formula: A theoretical approach to the fitting of personal amplification devices
,”
J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
97
,
1854
1864
.
13.
Cox
,
R.
,
Alexander
,
G.
, and
Gilmore
,
C.
(
1987
). “
Development of the Connected Speech Test (CST)
,”
Ear Hear.
8
,
119s
126s
.
14.
Cox
,
R.
,
Alexander
,
G.
,
Gilmore
,
C.
, and
Pusakulich
,
K.
(
1988
). “
Use of the Connected Speech Test (CST) with hearing-impaired listeners
,”
Ear Hear.
9
,
198
207
.
15.
Dubno
,
J.
, and
Ahlstrom
,
J.
(
1995
). “
Masked thresholds and consonant recognition in low-pass maskers for hearing-impaired and normal-hearing listeners
,”
J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
97
,
2430
2441
.
16.
Hogan
,
C.
, and
Turner
,
C.
(
1998
). “
High frequency audibility: Benefits for hearing-impaired listeners
,”
J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
104
,
432
441
.
17.
Kapadia, S., Blakemore, S., Graumann, D., and Phillips, A. (2002). “Prevalence of cochlear dead regions in patients with high-frequency sensorineural hearing loss,” Poster presented at the International Hearing Aid Conference, Lake Tahoe, CA, August 2002.
18.
Moore
,
B.
(
2001
). “
Dead regions in the cochlea: Diagnosis, perceptual consequences, and implications for the fitting of hearing aids
,”
Trends Ampl.
5
(
1
),
1
34
.
19.
Moore
,
B.
,
Huss
,
M.
,
Vickers
,
D.
,
Glasberg
,
B.
, and
Alcantara
,
J.
(
2000
). “
A test for the diagnosis of dead regions in the cochlea
,”
Br. J. Audiol.
34
,
205
224
.
20.
Pavlovic
,
C.
(
1984
). “
Use of the articulation index for assessing residual auditory function in listeners with sensorineural hearing impairment
,”
J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
75
,
1253
1258
.
21.
Pavlovic
,
C.
,
Studebaker
,
G.
, and
Scherbecoe
,
R.
(
1986
). “
An articulation index based procedure for predicting the speech recognition performance of hearing-impaired individuals
,”
J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
80
,
50
57
.
22.
Scherbecoe
,
R.
and
Studebaker
,
G.
(
2002
). “
Audibility-index functions for the connected speech test
,”
Ear and Hear.
23
,
385
398
.
23.
Studebaker
,
G.
(
1985
). “
A ‘rationalized’ arcsine transform
,”
J. Speech Hear. Res.
28
,
455
462
.
24.
Studebaker
,
G.
,
Scherbecoe
,
R.
,
McDaniel
,
D.
, and
Gray
,
G.
(
1997
). “
Age-related changes in monosyllabic word recognition performance when audibility is held constant
,”
J. Am. Acad. Audiol.
8
,
150
162
.
25.
Turner
,
C.
, and
Cummings
,
K.
(
1999
). “
Speech audibility for listeners with high-frequency hearing loss
,”
Am. J. Audiol.
8
,
47
56
.
26.
Turner
,
C.
, and
Henry
,
B.
(
2002
). “
Benefits of amplification for speech recognition in background noise
,”
J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
112
,
1675
1680
.
27.
Vickers
,
D.
,
Moore
,
B.
, 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
.
28.
Wang
,
M.
,
Reed
,
C.
, and
Bilger
,
R.
(
1978
). “
A comparison of the effects of filtering and sensorineural hearing loss on patterns of consonant confusions
,”
J. Speech Hear. Res.
21
,
5
36
.
This content is only available via PDF.
You do not currently have access to this content.