Current Issue
Volumes and Issues
For Authors
Manuscript Guidelines
Review Process
Conflict of Interest
Copyright
About the Journal
Editorial Board
Aim and Scope
Policy and Ethical Guidelines
Promotion of the Journal
Print-Version Subscription
Publisher and Contact Information
Contact Information
Sign in as an AUTHOR/REVIEWER
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
EFFECT OF AGE ON TIME-COMPRESSED SPEECH PERCEPTION
AND SPEECH PERCEPTION IN NOISE IN NORMAL-HEARING
INDIVIDUALS
1
Department of Audiology, All India Institute of Speech and Hearing, Mysore, India
Publication date: 2016-03-31
Corresponding author
Himanshu Kumar Sanju
Himanshu Kumar Sanju, Department of Audiology, All India Institute of Speech and Hearing, Mysore, India, e-mail: himanshusanjuaiish@gmail.com
Himanshu Kumar Sanju, Department of Audiology, All India Institute of Speech and Hearing, Mysore, India, e-mail: himanshusanjuaiish@gmail.com
J Hear Sci 2016;6(1):33-39
KEYWORDS
ABSTRACT
Background:
This work studied, in individuals with normal hearing, the perception of time-compressed speech, compression ratio, and speech perception in noise using phonemically balanced (PB) word lists in Kannada. The effect of age was also studied.
Material and Methods:
Participants were 29 young and middle-aged adults (native Kannada speakers) aged 15 to 50 years. The Speech Perception in Noise (SPIN) test was administered at signal to noise ratios (SNRs) of +5 dB, 0 dB, –5 dB, and in quiet. The Time-Compressed Speech Test (TCST) was administered on all participants at compression ratios of 0%, 40%, 50%, and 60%.
Results:
Young adults performed better than middle-aged adults in both the TCST and SPIN tests. As difficulty levels rose, performance decreased in both tests.
Conclusions:
Even in individuals with normal hearing, ageing has a deleterious effect on the performance of the central auditory processing system, which is necessary for speech perception under adverse listening conditions.
This work studied, in individuals with normal hearing, the perception of time-compressed speech, compression ratio, and speech perception in noise using phonemically balanced (PB) word lists in Kannada. The effect of age was also studied.
Material and Methods:
Participants were 29 young and middle-aged adults (native Kannada speakers) aged 15 to 50 years. The Speech Perception in Noise (SPIN) test was administered at signal to noise ratios (SNRs) of +5 dB, 0 dB, –5 dB, and in quiet. The Time-Compressed Speech Test (TCST) was administered on all participants at compression ratios of 0%, 40%, 50%, and 60%.
Results:
Young adults performed better than middle-aged adults in both the TCST and SPIN tests. As difficulty levels rose, performance decreased in both tests.
Conclusions:
Even in individuals with normal hearing, ageing has a deleterious effect on the performance of the central auditory processing system, which is necessary for speech perception under adverse listening conditions.
REFERENCES (38)
1.
Pedersen KE, Rosenhall U, Moller MB. Longitudinal study of changes in speech perception between 70 and 81 years of age. Audiology, 1991; 30(4): 201–11.
2.
Tun PA. Fast noisy speech: Age differences in processing rapid speech with background noise. Psychol Aging, 1998; 13(3): 424–34.
3.
Divenyi PL, Haupt KM. Audiological correlates of speech understanding deficits in elderly listeners with mild-to-moderate hearing loss. I. Age and lateral asymmetry effects. Ear Hear, 1997; 18(1): 42–61.
4.
Dubno JR, Lee FS, Matthews LJ, Mills JH. Age-related and gender-related changes in monaural speech recognition. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 1997; 40(2): 444–52.
5.
Helfer KS, Wilber LA. Hearing loss, aging, and speech perception in reverberation and noise. J Speech Hear Res, 1990; 33(1): 149–55.
6.
Cheesman MF, Hepburn D, Armitage JC, Marshall K. Comparison of growth of masking functions and speech discrimination abilities in younger and older adults. Audiology, 1995; 34(6): 321–33.
7.
Humes LE, Roberts L. Speech-recognition difficulties of the hearing-impaired elderly: The contributions of audibility. J Speech Hear Res, 1990; 33(4): 726–35.
8.
Strouse A, Ashmead DH, Ohde RN, Grantham DW. Temporal processing in the aging auditory system. J Acoust Soc Am, 1998; 104(4): 2385–99.
9.
Kumar UA, Sangamanatha AV, Vikas J. Effects of meditation on temporal processing and speech perceptual skills in younger and older adults. Asian J Neurol, 2013; 116(5): 632–40.
10.
Schneider BA, Pichora-Fuller MK, Kowalchuk D, Lamb M. Gap detection and the precedence effect in young and old adults. J Acoust Soc Am, 1994; 95(2): 980–91.
11.
Snell KB. Age-related changes in temporal gap detection. J Acoust Soc Am, 1997; 101(4): 2214–20.
12.
Letowski T, Poch N. Comprehension of time-compressed speech: Effects of age and speech complexity. J Am Acad Audiol, 1996; 7(6): 447–57.
13.
Versfeld NJ, Dreschler WA. The relationship between the intelligibility of time-compressed speech and speech in noise in young and elderly listeners. J Acoust Soc Am, 2002; 111: 401–8.
14.
Jafari Z, Omidvar S, Jafarloo F. Effects of ageing on speed and temporal resolution of speech stimuli in older adults. Med J Islam Repub Iran, 2013; 27(4): 195–203.
15.
Vaughan NE, Letowski T. Effects of age, speech rate, and type of test on temporal auditory processing. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 1997; 40(5): 1192–2000.
16.
Wiley TL, Cruickshanks KJ, Nondahl DM, Tweed TS, Klein R, Klein BE. Aging and word recognition in competing messages. J Am Acad Audiol, 1998; 9(3): 191–98.
17.
Jerger J, Chmiel R. Factor analytic structure of auditory impairment in elderly persons. J Am Acad Audiol, 1997; 8(4): 269–76.
18.
Dubno JR, Horwitz AR, Ahlstrom JB. Benefit of modulated maskers for speech recognition by younger and older adults with normal hearing. J Acoust Soc Am, 2002; 111(6): 2897–907.
19.
Wingfield A, Mccoy SL, Peelle JE, Tun PA, Cox LC. Effects of adult aging and hearing loss on comprehension of rapid speech varying in syntactic complexity. J Am Acad Audiol, 2006; 17(7): 487–97.
20.
Engström B, Hillerdal M, Laurell G, Bagger-Sjöbäck D. Selected pathological findings in the human cochlea. Acta Otolaryngol Suppl, 1987; 436: 110–16.
21.
Scholtz AW, Appenroth E, Kammen-Jolly K, Scholtz LU, Thumfart WF. Juvenile nasopharyngeal angiofibroma: management and therapy. Laryngoscope, 2001; 111: 681–87.
22.
Suzuki T, Nomoto Y, Nakagawa T, Kuwahata N, Ogawa H, Suzuki Y et al. Age-dependent degeneration of the stria vascularis in human cochleae. Laryngoscope, 2006; 116(10): 1846–50.
23.
Gordon-Salant S, Fitzgibbons PJ, Friedman SA. Recognition of time-compressed and natural speech with selective temporal enhancements by young and elderly listeners. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 2007; 50(5): 1181–93.
24.
Prabhu P, Sujan MJ, Rakshith S. Effect of compression ratio on perception of time compressed phonemically balanced words in Kannada and monosyllables. Audiol Res, 2015; 5(1): 128.
25.
Hemakumar G. Acoustic phonetic characteristics of Kannada language. Int J Comp Sci Issue, 2011; 8(2): 332–39.
26.
Venkatesh CS. Effect of consonant /k/ on vowel duration in Kannada. Unpublished Dissertation submitted to University of Mysore; 1995.
27.
Savithri SR. Acoustics and psychological correlates of speech. J Acoust Soc Ind, 1989; 17(3): 1–8.
28.
Carhart R, Jerger J. Preferred method for clinical determination of pure-tone thresholds. J Speech Hear Disord, 1959; 24(4): 330–35.
29.
Kumar P, Yathiraj A. Time compressed speech test in Kannada for children 7–12 years. Unpublished Dissertation submitted to University of Mysore; 2006.
30.
Yathiraj A, Vijaylakshmi CS. Bisyllabic phonemically balanced words in Kannada for children. Unpublished material. All India Institute of Speech and Hearing, Mysore-6.
31.
Gordon-Salant S, Zion DJ, Espy-Wilson C. Recognition of time-compressed speech does not predict recognition of natural fast-rate speech by older listeners. J Acoust Soc Am, 2014; 136(4): 268–74.
32.
Fostick L, Babkoff H. Temporal and non-temporal processes in the elderly. J Basic Clin Physiol Pharmacol, 2013; 24(3): 191–99.
33.
Heinrich A, Alain C, Schneider BA. Within- and betweenchannel gap detection in the human auditory cortex. Neuroreport, 2004; 15(13): 2051–56.
34.
Gordon-Salant S, Fitzgibbons PJ. Temporal factors and speech recognition performance in young and elderly listeners. J Speech Hear Res, 1993; 36(6): 1276–85.
35.
Gordon-Salant S, Fitzgibbons PJ. Selected cognitive factors and speech recognition performance among young and elderly listeners. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 1997; 40(2): 423–31.
36.
Helfer KS, Vargo M. Speech recognition and temporal processing in middle-aged women. J Am Acad Audiol, 2009; 20(4): 264–71.
37.
Wong PC, Ettlinger M, Sheppard JP, Gunasekera GM, Dhar S. Neuroanatomical characteristics and speech perception in noise in older adults. Ear Hear, 2010; 31(4): 471–79.
38.
Meister H, Schreitmüller S, Grugel L, Beutner D, Walger M, Meister I. Examining speech perception in noise and cognitive functions in the elderly. Am J Audiol, 2013; 22(2): 310–12.
Share
RELATED ARTICLE
We process personal data collected when visiting the website. The function of obtaining information about users and their behavior is carried out by voluntarily entered information in forms and saving cookies in end devices. Data, including cookies, are used to provide services, improve the user experience and to analyze the traffic in accordance with the Privacy policy. Data are also collected and processed by Google Analytics tool (more).
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
