Re: [AUDITORY] National Hearing Test (Bill Woods )

Subject: Re: [AUDITORY] National Hearing Test From: Bill Woods <Bill_Woods@xxxxxxxx> Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2013 20:13:30 +0000 List-Archive:<http://lists.mcgill.ca/scripts/wa.exe?LIST=AUDITORY> --_000_8B7E4506479CA84B8A00E10CF01B1143D0F9D68Cep2pexmbs2mssta_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Dick, One of your questions is easy to answer. Even listeners with normal hearing= show decreased intelligibility at constant SNR as overall level is raised.= Fletcher and his group saw this in their work, and Studebaker et al. (1999= ) provide a more recent set of data on this. I've seen different arguments = for why this might be the case but I'm not sure it's completely understood.= Arguments would include processes such as changing filter bandwidth, chang= ing compression amounts, and changing saturation of nerve fibers as level i= s changed. (Judy Dubno's group has also been looking at this more recently.= ) As Pierre mentioned in an earlier post, Judy Dubno and Larry Humes have don= e a great deal of work in the area of understanding speech performance with= aging and hearing loss, and they have a very nice review chapter in a 2010= Springer book, "The Aging Auditory System". I'd say their chapter is a gre= at place to start if you want to get a good overview of the current state. One main issue Dubno and Humes (2010) point out is that basic audibility ac= counting (using articulation index) goes a long way in capturing a large po= rtion of the variance of speech performance across listeners. From this per= spective, one way in which the phone test results may yield correlation wit= h absolute thresholds is if the noise used is not above absolute threshold = in some important speech frequency region (I assume the noise level is cons= tant and the speech level is adapted in the phone test, as in the Dutch ver= sion). When this is the case, absolute threshold itself, and not the noise,= will be contributing to the speech level required for 50% correct, thus in= creasing correlation with pure tone average (PTA) directly. Audibility alone doesn't always capture all the variance, however, and ther= e is ongoing research looking to understand the influence of other contribu= tors, such as reduced inner hair cell and/or auditory nerve fiber count, wh= ich may manifest as poor performance on basic, supra-threshold auditory tas= ks such as frequency modulation detection (see, e.g., Strelcyk and Dau, 200= 9). Note that these other contributors may affect speech performance in qui= et as well as in noise (see, e.g., our 2013 paper on a related issue). In the end, the health of many of the processes contributing to speech inte= lligibility performance in quiet and in noise may all be correlated with ag= e to some degree, and thus also correlated with each other. It would be int= eresting to hear from the Phone Test folks how much variance in predicted P= TA is reduced (or how much categorization into their three categories is im= proved) when the phone test results are added to predictions based on age a= lone. Cheers, Bill Woods Starkey Hearing Research Center Berkeley, CA Humes, L. E., and Dubno, J. R. (2010). "Factors affecting speech understand= ing in older adults," in The Aging Auditory System, edited by S. Gordon-Sal= ant, R. D. Frisina, A. N. Popper, and R. R. Fay (Springer, New York), pp. 2= 11-257. Strelcyk, O., and Dau, T. (2009). "Relations between frequency selectivity,= temporal fine-structure processing, and speech reception in impaired heari= ng," J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 125, 3328-3345. Studebaker, G. A., Sherbecoe, R. L., McDaniel, D. M., and Gwaltney, C. A. (= 1999). "Monosyllabic word recognition at higher-than-normal speech and nois= e levels," J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 105, 2431-2444. Woods, W., Kalluri S., Pentony S., and Nooraei, N. (2013). "Predicting the = effect of hearing loss and audibility on amplified speech reception in a mu= lti-talker listening scenario," J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 133, 4268-4278. From: AUDITORY - Research in Auditory Perception [mailto:AUDITORY@xxxxxxxx= ILL.CA] On Behalf Of Richard F. Lyon Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2013 11:21 AM To: AUDITORY@xxxxxxxx Subject: Re: National Hearing Test I took the test just now and got the expected result: "slightly below norm= al range" in both ears (expected, based on previous tests that show somewha= t worse than typical hearing for my 61-year age). It would be great if there was better quantification of the result, like dB= of SNR degradation relative to normal, rather than just "slightly below no= rmal range". Charles, is there a numeric range associated with these words= ? It does seem like a pretty effective test of hearing in noise. I presume i= t's doing an adaptive SNR process, since it would usually give me a relativ= ely easy one after each one where I was pretty much guessing. What I'd like to understand better is exactly how the mechanisms causing th= reshold elevation also cause degradation of SNR threshold. I presume that = the auditory filter bandwidths are wider, and the compression less, with he= aring loss. But they're also wider at high levels, and high levels don't c= ause a degraded SNR threshold, do they? Or maybe they do, in normal hearin= g, at levels high enough to cause this much bandwidth widening? I've definitely been feeling a degraded ability to deal with conversation i= n noisy environments (cafes and such), which I understand is correlated wit= h absolute threshold elevation. I'm just not clear on why it's so correlat= ed. Is it understood? Is there a good paper on this? Dick On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 9:02 AM, Watson, Charles S. <watson@xxxxxxxx<mai= lto:watson@xxxxxxxx>> wrote: Tom, I know it is hard to accept that the telephone test works as well as it doe= s, given the experiences we have all had with a range of signal qualities f= or unselected home telephones. However the data showed that tests taken wi= th over 100 different home phones used by the veterans in our validation st= udy yielded a similar correlation between the telephone SNR for 50% correct= recognition and average pure-tone thresholds to that obtained with the car= efully selected telephones used to administer the test in three VA clinics.= We have also tested a sample of different phones to determine the range o= f distortion and bandwidths, and found them to be acceptable if speech hear= d over them was not noticeably distorted. Most importantly, the range of absolute levels delivered by various phones = would be quite important if the test measured pure-tone thresholds in the q= uiet. The test works because of the insight of Smits and his colleagues th= at SNR thresholds can be quite reliable under a range of reproductive condi= tions for which absolute thresholds would be virtually meaningless. Chuck Watson -----Original Message----- From: Tom Brennan [mailto:g_brennantg@xxxxxxxx<mailto:g_brennantg@xxxxxxxx= tan.sfasu.edu>] Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2013 6:01 AM To: Watson, Charles S. Cc: AUDITORY@xxxxxxxx<mailto:AUDITORY@xxxxxxxx> Subject: Re: National Hearing Test Actually, my comments about telephone service are based on having lived in = Germany for nearly five years and having a number of friends in Europe. I = do believe their telephone system superior to ours. This is especially tru= e of their cell phone system but is to a lesser degree of their land lines. I wonder if some kind of feedback loop could legally be set up to help know= what kind of phone system a client doing this test i susing. Of course, another issue revolves around the fact that most telephones now = allow the user to control the volume of the receiver thus adding another co= nfo7unding variable to the mix. Tom Tom Brennan KD5VIJ, CCC-A/SLP web page http://titan.sfasu.edu/~g_brennantg/sonicpage.html --_000_8B7E4506479CA84B8A00E10CF01B1143D0F9D68Cep2pexmbs2mssta_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <html xmlns:v=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o=3D"urn:schemas-micr= osoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" = xmlns:m=3D"http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns=3D"http:= //www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"> <head> <meta http-equiv=3D"Content-Type" content=3D"text/html; charset=3Dus-ascii"= > <meta name=3D"Generator" content=3D"Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)"> <style></style> </head> <body lang=3D"EN-US" link=3D"blue" vlink=3D"purple"> <div class=3D"WordSection1"> Hi Dick,<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> One of your questions is easy to answer. Eve= n listeners with normal hearing show decreased intelligibility at constant = SNR as overall level is raised. Fletcher and his group saw this in their work, and Studebaker et al. (1999) provide a more recent set= of data on this. I’ve seen different arguments for why this might be= the case but I’m not sure it’s completely understood. Argument= s would include processes such as changing filter bandwidth, changing compression amounts, and changing saturation of nerve = fibers as level is changed. (Judy Dubno’s group has also been looking= at this more recently.)<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> As Pierre mentioned in an earlier post, Judy= Dubno and Larry Humes have done a great deal of work in the area of unders= tanding speech performance with aging and hearing loss, and they have a very nice review chapter in a 2010 Springer book, “T= he Aging Auditory System”. I’d say their chapter is a great pla= ce to start if you want to get a good overview of the current state.<o:p></= o:p> <o:p> </o:p> One main issue Dubno and Humes (2010) point = out is that basic audibility accounting (using articulation index) goes a l= ong way in capturing a large portion of the variance of speech performance across listeners. From this perspective, one way in whi= ch the phone test results may yield correlation with absolute thresholds is= if the noise used is not above absolute threshold in some important speech= frequency region (I assume the noise level is constant and the speech level is adapted in the phone test,= as in the Dutch version). When this is the case, absolute threshold itself= , and not the noise, will be contributing to the speech level required for = 50% correct, thus increasing correlation with pure tone average (PTA) directly.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Audibility alone doesn’t always captur= e all the variance, however, and there is ongoing research looking to under= stand the influence of other contributors, such as reduced inner hair cell and/or auditory nerve fiber count, which may manifest as poor pe= rformance on basic, supra-threshold auditory tasks such as frequency modula= tion detection (see, e.g., Strelcyk and Dau, 2009). Note that these other c= ontributors may affect speech performance in quiet as well as in noise (see, e.g., our 2013 paper on a related issue= ).<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> In the end, the health of many of the proces= ses contributing to speech intelligibility performance in quiet and in nois= e may all be correlated with age to some degree, and thus also correlated with each other. It would be interesting to hear from the = Phone Test folks how much variance in predicted PTA is reduced (or how much= categorization into their three categories is improved) when the phone tes= t results are added to predictions based on age alone.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Cheers,<o:p></o:p> Bill Woods<o:p></o:p> Starkey Hearing Research Center<o:p></o:p></= span> Berkeley, CA<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Humes, L. E., and Dubno, J. R. (2010). &#822= 0;Factors affecting speech understanding in older adults,” in The Aging Auditory System, edited by S. Gordon-Salant, R. D. Frisina= , A. N. Popper, and R. R. Fay (Springer, New York), pp. 211–257.<o:p>= </o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Strelcyk, O., and Dau, T. (2009). “Rel= ations between frequency selectivity, temporal fine-structure processing, a= nd speech reception in impaired hearing,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 125, 3328–3345.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Studebaker, G. A., Sherbecoe, R. L., McDanie= l, D. M., and Gwaltney, C. A. (1999). “Monosyllabic word recognition = at higher-than-normal speech and noise levels,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 105, 2431–2444.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Woods, W., Kalluri S., Pentony S., and Noora= ei, N. (2013). “Predicting the effect of hearing loss and audibility = on amplified speech reception in a multi-talker listening scenario,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 133, 4268–4278.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <o:p> </o:p> From: AUDITORY= - Research in Auditory Perception [mailto:AUDITORY@xxxxxxxx On Behalf Of Richard F. Lyon Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2013 11:21 AM To: AUDITORY@xxxxxxxx Subject: Re: National Hearing Test<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <div> <div> <div> <div> I took the test just = now and got the expected result:  "slightly below normal range&qu= ot; in both ears (expected, based on previous tests that show somewhat wors= e than typical hearing for my 61-year age).<o:p></o:p> </div> <div> It would be great if = there was better quantification of the result, like dB of SNR degradation r= elative to normal, rather than just "slightly below normal range"= .  Charles, is there a numeric range associated with these words?<o:p></o:p> </div> It does seem like a p= retty effective test of hearing in noise.  I presume it's doing an ada= ptive SNR process, since it would usually give me a relatively easy one aft= er each one where I was pretty much guessing.<o:p></o:p> </div> What I'd like to unde= rstand better is exactly how the mechanisms causing threshold elevation als= o cause degradation of SNR threshold.  I presume that the auditory fil= ter bandwidths are wider, and the compression less, with hearing loss.  But they're also wider at high levels, and = high levels don't cause a degraded SNR threshold, do they?  Or maybe t= hey do, in normal hearing, at levels high enough to cause this much bandwid= th widening? I've definitely been feeling a degraded ability to deal with conversation i= n noisy environments (cafes and such), which I understand is correlated wit= h absolute threshold elevation.  I'm just not clear on why it's so cor= related.  Is it understood?  Is there a good paper on this? Dick <o:p></o:p> <div> <o:p> </o:p> </div> </div> </div> <div> <o:p> </o:p> <div> On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 9:02 AM, Watson, Charles S. = <<a href=3D"mailto:watson@xxxxxxxx" target=3D"_blank">watson@xxxxxxxx= edu</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p> Tom, I know it is hard to accept that the telephone test works as well as it doe= s, given the experiences we have all had with a range of signal qualities f= or unselected home telephones.  However the data showed that tests tak= en with over 100 different home phones used by the veterans in our validation study yielded a similar correlation= between the telephone SNR for 50% correct recognition and average pure-ton= e thresholds to that obtained with the carefully selected telephones used t= o administer the test in three VA clinics.  We have also tested a sample of different phones to determi= ne the range of distortion and bandwidths, and found them to be acceptable = if speech heard over them was not noticeably distorted. Most importantly, the range of absolute levels delivered by various phones = would be quite important if the test measured pure-tone thresholds in the q= uiet.  The test works because of the insight of Smits and his colleagu= es that SNR thresholds can be quite reliable under a range of reproductive conditions for which absolute thresholds wou= ld be virtually meaningless.<o:p></o:p> <div> Chuck Watson -----Original Message----- From: Tom Brennan [mailto:<a href=3D"mailto:g_brennantg@xxxxxxxx">g_= brennantg@xxxxxxxx</a>]<o:p></o:p> </div> <div> Sent: Wednesday, Octo= ber 30, 2013 6:01 AM To: Watson, Charles S. Cc: <a href=3D"mailto:AUDITORY@xxxxxxxx">AUDITORY@xxxxxxxx</a= > Subject: Re: National Hearing Test<o:p></o:p> </div> <div> <div> Actually, my comments about telephone service are ba= sed on having lived in Germany for nearly five years and having a number of= friends in Europe.  I do believe their telephone system superior to o= urs.  This is especially true of their cell phone system but is to a lesser degree of their land lines. I wonder if some kind of feedback loop could legally be set up to help know= what kind of phone system a client doing this test i susing. Of course, another issue revolves around the fact that most telephones now = allow the user to control the volume of the receiver thus adding another co= nfo7unding variable to the mix. Tom Tom Brennan  KD5VIJ, CCC-A/SLP web page <a href=3D"http://titan.sfasu.edu/~g_brennantg/sonicpage.html" tar= get=3D"_blank"> http://titan.sfasu.edu/~g_brennantg/sonicpage.html</a><o:p></o:p> </div> </div> </div> <o:p> </o:p> </div> </div> </body> </html> --_000_8B7E4506479CA84B8A00E10CF01B1143D0F9D68Cep2pexmbs2mssta_--

This message came from the mail archive
/var/www/postings/2013/
maintained by:

DAn Ellis <dpwe@ee.columbia.edu>
Electrical Engineering Dept., Columbia University