Search

Purpose: This study compared masking release for adults and children with normal hearing and hearing loss. For the participants with hearing loss, masking release using simulated hearing aid amplification with 2 different compression speeds (slow, fast) was compared. Method: Sentence recognition in unmodulated noise was compared with recognition in modulated noise (masking release). Recognition was measured for participants with hearing loss using individualized amplification via the hearing-aid simulator. Results: Adults with hearing loss showed greater masking release than the children with hearing loss. Average masking release was small (1 dB) and did not depend on hearing status. Masking release was comparable for slow and fast compression. Conclusions: The use of amplification in this study contrasts with previous studies that did not use amplification. The results suggest that when differences in audibility are reduced, participants with hearing loss may be able to take advantage of dips in the noise levels, similar to participants with normal hearing. Although children required a more favorable signal-to-noise ratio than adults for both unmodulated and modulated noise, masking release was not statistically different. However, the ability to detect a difference may have been limited by the small amount of masking release observed.

Purpose: This study compared masking release for adults and children with normal hearing and hearing loss. For the participants with hearing loss, masking release using simulated hearing aid amplification with 2 different compression speeds (slow, fast) was compared. Method: Sentence recognition in unmodulated noise was compared with recognition in modulated noise (masking release). Recognition was measured for participants with hearing loss using individualized amplification via the hearing-aid simulator. Results: Adults with hearing loss showed greater masking release than the children with hearing loss. Average masking release was small (1 dB) and did not depend on hearing status. Masking release was comparable for slow and fast compression. Conclusions: The use of amplification in this study contrasts with previous studies that did not use amplification. The results suggest that when differences in audibility are reduced, participants with hearing loss may be able to take advantage of dips in the noise levels, similar to participants with normal hearing. Although children required a more favorable signal-to-noise ratio than adults for both unmodulated and modulated noise, masking release was not statistically different. However, the ability to detect a difference may have been limited by the small amount of masking release observed., This study examined the effects of hearing-aid compression speed and age (children vs. adults) on masking release. Masking release is a measure of the ability to use dips in a [...]

Background  Adults and children with sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL) have trouble understanding speech in rooms with reverberation when using hearing aid amplification. While the use of amplitude compression signal processing in hearing aids may contribute to this difficulty, there is conflicting evidence on the effects of amplitude compression settings on speech recognition. Less clear is the effect of a fast release time for adults and children with SNHL when using compression ratios derived from a prescriptive procedure. Purpose  The aim of the study is to determine whether release time impacts speech recognition in reverberation for children and adults with SNHL and to determine if these effects of release time and reverberation can be predicted using indices of audibility or temporal and spectral distortion. Research Design  This is a quasi-experimental cohort study. Participants used a hearing aid simulator set to the Desired Sensation Level algorithm m[i/o] for three different amplitude compression release times. Reverberation was simulated using three different reverberation times. Participants  Participants were 20 children and 16 adults with SNHL. Data Collection and Analyses  Participants were seated in a sound-attenuating booth and then nonsense syllable recognition was measured. Predictions of speech recognition were made using indices of audibility, temporal distortion, and spectral distortion and the effects of release time and reverberation were analyzed using linear mixed models. Results  While nonsense syllable recognition decreased in reverberation release time did not significantly affect nonsense syllable recognition. Participants with lower audibility were more susceptible to the negative effect of reverberation on nonsense syllable recognition. Conclusion  We have extended previous work on the effects of reverberation on aided speech recognition to children with SNHL. Variations in release time did not impact the understanding of speech. An index of audibility best predicted nonsense syllable recognition in reverberation and, clinically, these results suggest that patients with less audibility are more susceptible to nonsense syllable recognition in reverberation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: We examined how cognitive and linguistic skills affect speech recognition in noise for children with normal hearing. Children with better working memory and language abilities were expected to have better speech recognition in noise than peers with poorer skills in these domains.Design: As part of a prospective, cross-sectional study, children with normal hearing completed speech recognition in noise for three types of stimuli: (1) monosyllabic words, (2) syntactically correct but semantically anomalous sentences and (3) semantically and syntactically anomalous word sequences. Measures of vocabulary, syntax and working memory were used to predict individual differences in speech recognition in noise.Study sample: Ninety-six children with normal hearing, who were between 5 and 12 years of age.Results: Higher working memory was associated with better speech recognition in noise for all three stimulus types. Higher vocabulary abilities were associated with better recognition in noise for sentences and word sequences, but not for words.Conclusions: Working memory and language both influence children’s speech recognition in noise, but the relationships vary across types of stimuli. These findings suggest that clinical assessment of speech recognition is likely to reflect underlying cognitive and linguistic abilities, in addition to a child’s auditory skills, consistent with the Ease of Language Understanding model. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]