More details
Hide details
Vanderbilt University, Department of Hearing and Speech Sciences, Nashville, TN 37232, U.S.A
Arizona State University, Department of Speech and Hearing Science, Tempe, AZ 85287, U.S.A.
University of Pittsburgh, Department of Communication Science and Disorders (CSD), Pittsburgh, PA 15260, U.S.A.
Advanced Bionics, Department of Research and Technology, Valencia, CA 91355, U.S.A.
René H. Gifford   

René H. Gifford, Vanderbilt University, Department of Hearing and Speech Sciences, Nashville, TN 37232, U.S.A., e-mail: rene.h.gifford@vanderbilt.edu
Publication date: 2020-04-20
J Hear Sci 2012;2(4):9–17
In a previous paper we reported the frequency selectivity, temporal resolution, nonlinear cochlear processing, and speech recognition in quiet and in noise for 5 listeners with normal hearing (mean age 24.2 years) and 17 older listeners (mean age 68.5 years) with bilateral, mild sloping to profound sensory hearing loss (Gifford et al., 2007). Since that report, 2 additional participants with hearing loss completed experimentation for a total of 19 listeners. Of the 19 with hearing loss, 16 ultimately received a cochlear implant. The purpose of the current study was to provide information on the pre-operative psychophysical characteristics of low-frequency hearing and speech recognition abilities, and on the resultant postoperative speech recognition and associated benefit from cochlear implantation. The current preoperative data for the 16 listeners receiving cochlear implants demonstrate: 1) reduced or absent nonlinear cochlear processing at 500 Hz, 2) impaired frequency selectivity at 500 Hz, 3) normal temporal resolution at low modulation rates for a 500-Hz carrier, 4) poor speech recognition in a modulated background, and 5) highly variable speech recognition (from 0 to over 60% correct) for monosyllables in the bilaterally aided condition. As reported previously, measures of auditory function were not significantly correlated with pre- or post-operative speech recognition – with the exception of nonlinear cochlear processing and preoperative sentence recognition in quiet (p=0.008) and at +10 dB SNR (p=0.007). These correlations, however, were driven by the data obtained from two listeners who had the highest degree of nonlinearity and preoperative sentence recognition. All estimates of postoperative speech recognition performance were significantly higher than preoperative estimates for both the ear that was implanted (p<0.001) as well as for the best-aided condition (p<0.001). It can be concluded that older individuals with mild sloping to profound sensory hearing loss have very little to no residual nonlinear cochlear function, resulting in impaired frequency selectivity as well as poor speech recognition in modulated noise. These same individuals exhibit highly significant improvement in speech recognition in both quiet and noise following cochlear implantation. For older individuals with mild to profound sensorineural hearing loss who have difficulty in speech recognition with appropriately fitted hearing aids, there is little to lose in terms of psychoacoustic processing in the low-frequency region and much to gain with respect to speech recognition and overall communication benefit. These data further support the need to consider factors beyond the audiogram in determining cochlear implant candidacy, as older individuals with relatively good low-frequency hearing may exhibit vastly different speech perception abilities – illustrating the point that signal audibility is not a reliable predictor of performance on supra-threshold tasks such as speech recognition.
Bacon SP, Opie JM, Montoya DY: The effects of hearing loss and noise masking on the masking release for speech in temporally complex backgrounds. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 1998; 41: 549–63.
Bacon SP, Gleitman RM: Modulation detection in subjects with relatively flat hearing losses. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 1992; 35: 642–53.
Bacon SP, Viemeister NF: Temporal modulation transfer functions in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. Audiology, 1985; 24: 117–34.
Baer T, Moore BCJ: Effects of spectral smearing on the intelligibility of sentences in the presence of interfering speeck. J Acoust Soc Am, 1994; 95: 2277–80.
Brown CA, Bacon SP: Low-frequency speech cues and simulated electric-acoustic hearing. J Acoust Soc Am, 2009; 125: 1658–65.
Carlyon RP, Datta J: Excitation produced by Schroeder-phase complexes: Evidence for fast-acting compression in the auditory system. J Acoust Soc Am, 1997; 101: 3636–47.
Gantz BJ, Hansen MR, Turner CW et al: Hybrid 10 clinical trial: preliminary results. Audiol Neurotol, 2009; 14(Suppl.1): 32–38.
Gifford RH, Dorman MF, Spahr AJ, Bacon SP: Auditory function and speech understanding in listeners who qualify for EAS surgery. Ear Hear, 2007; 28: 114S–18S.
Gifford RH, Dorman MF, Brown CA: Psychophysical properties of low-frequency hearing: implications for perceiving speech and music via electric and acoustic stimulation. Adv Otorhinolaryngol, 2010; 67: 51–60.
Glasberg BR, Moore BCJ: Derivation of auditory filter shapes from notched-noise data, Hear Res, 1990; 47: 103–38.
He NJ, Mills JH, Ahlstrom JB, Dubno JR: Age-related differences in the temporal modulation transfer function with puretone carriers. J Acoust Soc Am, 2008; 124: 3841–49.
Lentz JJ, Leek MR: Psychophysical estimates of cochlear phase response: masking by harmonic complexes. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol, 2001; 2: 408–22.
Levitt H: Transformed up-down methods in psychoacoustics. J Acoust Soc Am, 1971; 49: 467–77.
Moore BCJ, Glasberg BR: Simulation of the effects of loudness recruitment and threshold elevation on the intelligibility of speech in quiet and in a background of speech. J Acoust Soc Am, 1993; 94: 2050–62.
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(2): 961–68.
Nilsson MJ, Soli SD, Sullivan J: Development of a hearing in noise test for the measurement of speech reception threshold. J Acoust Soc Am, 1994; 95: 1085–99.
Oxenham AO, Dau T: Reconciling frequency selectivity and phase effects in masking. J Acoust Soc Am, 2001; 110: 1525–38.
Patterson RD: Auditory filter shapes derived with noise stimuli. J Acoust Soc Am, 1976; 59: 640–54.
Patterson RD, Nimmo-Smith I, Weber DL, Milroy R: The deterioration of hearing with age: frequency selectivity, the critical ratio, the audiogram and speech threshold. J Acoust Soc Am, 1982; 72: 1788–803.
Peters RW, Moore, BCJ: Auditory filter shapes at low center frequencies in young and elderly hearing-impaired subjects. J Acoust Soc Am, 1992; 91(1): 256–66.
Peterson GE, Lehiste I: Revised CNC lists for auditory tests. J Speech Hear Disord, 1962; 27: 62–70.
Qin MK, Oxenham AJ: Effects of envelope-vocoder processing on F0 discrimination and concurrent-vowel identification. Ear Hear, 2005; 26: 451–60.
Recio A, Rhode WS: Basilar membrane responses to broadband stimuli. J Acoust Soc Am, 2000; 108: 2281–98.
Schroeder MR: Synthesis of low peak-factor signal and binary sequences with low autocorrelation. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 1970; 16: 85–89.
Spahr AJ, Dorman MF, Litvak LL et al: Development and Validation of the AzBio Sentence Lists. Ear Hear, 2012; 33: 112–17.
Stone MA, Glasberg BR, Moore BCJ: Simplified measurement of impaired auditory filter shapes using the notched-noise method. Br J Audiol, 1992; 26: 329–34.
Thornton AR, Raffin MJ: Speech discrimination scores modeled as a binomial variable. J Speech Hear Res, 1978; 21: 507–18.
Viemeister NF: Temporal modulation transfer functions based upon modulation thresholds. J Acoust Soc Am, 1979; 66: 1364–80.