ORIGINAL ARTICLE
PERCEPTION OF PITCH CHANGES IN HEARING-IMPAIRED ADULTS WITH AIDED AND UNAIDED HEARING LOSS
 
More details
Hide details
1
The Eargroup, Antwerp-Deurne, Belgium
2
VU Free University Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
3
Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands
4
Fondazione Ascolta e Vivi, Milan, Italy
5
Bucharest University, Bucharest, Romania
6
Laboratory of Biomedical Physics, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Paul J. Govaerts   

Paul J. Govaerts, The Eargroup, Herentalsebaan 75, 2100 Deurne, Belgium, e-mail: dr.govaerts@eargroup.net
Publication date: 2020-04-20
 
J Hear Sci 2012;2(3):25–34
 
KEYWORDS
ABSTRACT
Background:
Pitch relates to the low frequency temporal content of sound, which mainly depends on phase coding at the level of the auditory nerve. In this study, we aim to assess the detectibility of pitch changes in different populations of hearingimpaired subjects suffering from sensorineural hearing loss in order to identify possible poor temporal coding.

Material and Methods:
A number of tests – part of the A§E (ASSE or Auditory Speech Sounds Evaluation) psychoacoustic test suite – were used to assess the perception of pitch changes in adults with a hearing loss (a) in the high frequencies with or without classical hearing aids, (b) in the low frequencies, and (c) in a group of cochlear implant users. All test stimuli were controlled for their fundamental frequency (F0), which either remained stable during the stimulus presentation or which, simulating intonation, glided from F0 to F0+∆. Isolated synthetic complexes were used as well as pseudo-words or pseudosentences mimicking linguistically relevant contexts. The subjects were asked to distinguish these sounds in either identification or discrimination tasks.

Results:
Hearing-impaired subjects, and particularly those with low-frequency hearing loss, performed significantly worse in comparison to hearing adults on all tests. The use of a hearing aid did not yield significant improvements. The cochlear implant users experienced great difficulty in performing the tests.

Conclusion:
The intonation tests of A§E2009 are a useful diagnostic tool to distinguish hearing-impaired subjects based on their capacity to process low-frequency information. The tests may be of particular use in the evaluation of the impact of auditory rehabilitation, hearing aids, or electro-acoustic stimulation.

 
REFERENCES (48)
1.
Moore BC: An introduction to the psychology of hearing. 5th ed. Bingley: Emerald, 2008.
 
2.
Gelfand SA: Essentials of Audiology. 3rd ed. New York: Thieme Medical Publishers, 2009.
 
3.
Moore BC: The role of temporal fine structure processing in pitch perception, masking, and speech perception for normalhearing and hearing-impaired people. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol, 2008; 9: 399–406.
 
4.
Rosen S: Temporal information in speech: acoustic, auditory and linguistic aspects. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci, 1992; 336: 367–73.
 
5.
Moore BC: The role of temporal fine structure in normal and impaired hearing. In: Dau T, Buchholz JM, Harte JM, Christiansen TU (eds.), Auditory signal processing in hearing-impaired listeners. Centertryk A/S, 2008.
 
6.
Kale S, Heinz MG: Envelope coding in auditory nerve fibers following noise induced hearing loss. J Ass Res Otolaryng, 2010; 11: 657–73.
 
7.
Johnson DH: The relationship between spike rate and synchrony in responses of auditory-nerve fibers to single tones. J Acoust Soc Am, 1980; 68: 1115–22.
 
8.
Palmer AR, Russell IJ: Phase-locking in the cochlear nerve of the guinea-pig and its relation to the receptor potential of inner hair-cells. Hear Res, 1986; 24: 1–15.
 
9.
Baer T, Moore BC: Effects of spectral smearing on the intelligibility of sentences in noise. J Acoust Soc Am, 1993; 94: 1229–41.
 
10.
Smith ZM, Delgutte B, Oxenham AJ: Chimaeric sounds reveal dichotomies in auditory perception. Nature, 2002; 416: 87–90.
 
11.
Gilbert G, Lorenzi C: The ability of listeners to use recovered envelope cues from speech fine structure. J Acoust Soc Am, 2006; 119: 2438–44.
 
12.
Lorenzi C, Gilbert G, Carn H et al: Speech perception problems of the hearing impaired reflect inability to use temporal fine structure. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 2006; 103: 18866–69.
 
13.
Baer T, Moore BC: Effects of spectral smearing on the intelligibility of sentences in the presence of interfering speech. J Acoust Soc Am, 1994; 95: 2277–80.
 
14.
Fullgrabe C, Berthommier F, Lorenzi C: Masking release for consonant features in temporally fluctuating background noise. Hear Res, 2006; 211: 74–84.
 
15.
Gnansia D, Jourdes V, Lorenzi C: Effect of masker modulation depth on speech masking release. Hear Res, 2008; 239: 60–68.
 
16.
Hopkins K, Moore BC, Stone MA: Effects of moderate cochlear hearing loss on the ability to benefit from temporal fine structure information in speech. J Acoust Soc Am, 2008; 123: 1140–53.
 
17.
Nelson PB, Jin SH, Carney AE, Nelson DA: Understanding speech in modulated interference: cochlear implant users and normal-hearing listeners. J Acoust Soc Am, 2003; 113: 961–68.
 
18.
Qin MK, Oxenham AJ: Effects of simulated cochlear-implant processing on speech reception in fluctuating maskers. J Acoust Soc Am, 2003; 114: 446–54.
 
19.
Stickney GS, Nie K, Zeng FG: Contribution of frequency modulation to speech recognition in noise. J Acoust Soc Am, 2005; 118: 2412–20.
 
20.
Buss E, Hall JW III, Grose JH: Temporal fine-structure cues to speech and pure tone modulation in observers with sensorineural hearing loss. Ear Hear, 2004; 25: 242–50.
 
21.
Santurette S, Dau T: Binaural pitch perception in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. Hear Res, 2007; 223: 29–47.
 
22.
Duquesnoy AJ: Effect of a single interfering noise or speech source upon the binaural sentence intelligibility of aged persons. J Acoust Soc Am, 1983; 74: 739–43.
 
23.
Festen JM, Plomp R: Effects of fluctuating noise and interfering speech on the speech-reception threshold for impaired and normal hearing. J Acoust Soc Am, 1990; 88: 1725–36.
 
24.
Lorenzi C, Debruille L, Garnier S et al: Abnormal auditory temporal processing for frequencies where absolute thresholds are normal. J Acoust Soc Am, 2009; 125: 27–30.
 
25.
Horwitz AR, Dubno JR, Ahlstrom JB: Recognition of low-passfiltered consonants in noise with normal and impaired highfrequency hearing. J Acoust Soc Am, 2002; 111: 409–16.
 
26.
Turner CW, Souza PE, Forget LN: Use of temporal envelope cues in speech recognition by normal and hearing-impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am, 1995; 97: 2568–76.
 
27.
Bacon SP, Viemeister NF: Temporal modulation transfer functions in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. Audiology, 1985; 24: 117–34.
 
28.
Moore BC, Glasberg BR: Temporal modulation transfer functions obtained using sinusoidal carriers with normally hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am, 2001; 110: 1067–73.
 
29.
Chung BJ, Hall JW III, Buss E et al: Menière’s disease: effects of glycerol on tasks involving temporal processing. Audiol Neurotol, 2004; 9: 115–24.
 
30.
Kuo Y-C, Rosen S, Faulkner A: Acoustic cues to tonal contrasts in Mandarin: implications for cochlear implantation. J Acoust Soc Am, 2008; 123: 2815–24.
 
31.
Savino M: Intonational cues to discourse structure in a regional variety of Italian. In: Gilles P, Peters J (eds.), Regional variation in intonation. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 2004.
 
32.
Swertz M, Collier R, Terken J: Prosodic predictors of discourse finality in spontaneous monologues. Speech Communication, 1994; 15: 79–90.
 
33.
Van Heuven VJ, Haan J: Phonetic correlates of statement versus question intonation in Dutch. In: Botinis A (ed.), Intonation: Analysis, Modelling and Technology. Dordrecht/Boston/ London: Kluwer, 2000.
 
34.
Bachorowski JA, Owren M: Acoustic correlates of talker sex and individual talker identity are present in a short vowel segment produced in running speech. J Acoust Soc Am, 1999; 102: 1054–63.
 
35.
Gfeller K, Turner C, Oleson J et al: Accuracy of cochlear implant recipients on pitch perception, melody recognition, and speech reception in noise. Ear Hear, 2007; 28: 412–23.
 
36.
Chatterjee M, Peng S: Processing F0 with cochlear implants: modulation frequency discrimination and speech intonation recognition. Hear Res, 2008; 235: 143–56.
 
37.
Stickney GS, Assman PF, Chang J, Zeng FG: Effects of cochlear implant processing and fundamental frequency on the intelligibility of competing voices. J Acoust Soc Am, 2007; 122: 1069–78.
 
38.
Govaerts PJ, Daemers K, Yperman M et al: Auditory Speech Sounds Evaluation (A§E®): a new test to assess detection, discrimination and identification in hearing impairment. Cochlear Implants Int, 2006; 7: 97–106.
 
39.
Heeren W, Coene M, Vaerenberg B et al: Development of the A§E test battery for assessment of pitch perception in speech. Cochlear Implants Int, 2012 [in press].
 
40.
Vaerenberg B, Pascu A, Del Bo L et al: Clinical assessment of pitch perception. Otol Neurotol, 2011; 32: 736–41.
 
41.
Levitt H: Transformed up-down methods in psychoacoustics. J Acoust Soc Am, 1971; 49: 467–77.
 
42.
Fry DB: Duration and intensity as physical correlates of linguistic stress. J Acoust Soc Am, 1955; 27: 765–68.
 
43.
Whalen DH, Xu Y: Information for Mandarin tones in the amplitude contour and in brief segments. Phonetica, 1992; 49: 25–47.
 
44.
Skarzynski H, Lorens A, Piotrowska A: A new method of partial deafness treatment. Med Sci Monit, 2003; 9(4): CS20–24.
 
45.
Turner CW, Gantz BJ, Vidal C et al: Speech recognition in noise for cochlear implant listeners: benefits of residual acoustic hearing. J Acoust Soc Am, 2004; 115: 1729–35.
 
46.
Gantz BJ, Turner CW, Gfeller KE, Lowder MW: Preservation of hearing in cochlear implant surgery: advantages of combined electrical and acoustical speech processing. Laryngoscope, 2005; 115: 796–802.
 
47.
Dorman MF, Gifford RH, Spahr AJ, McKarns SA: The benefits of combining acoustic and electric stimulation for the recognition of speech, voice and melodies. Audiol & Neurotol, 2008;13: 105–12.
 
48.
Brockmeier SJ, Peterreins M, Lorens A et al: Music perception in electric acoustic stimulation users as assessed by the Mu.S.I.C. test. Adv Otorhinolaryngol, 2010; 67: 70–80.
 
eISSN:2084-3127
ISSN:2083-389X