ORIGINAL ARTICLE
TEMPORAL RESOLUTION OF INDIVIDUALS WITH VARYING DEGREES OF ACCEPTABLE NOISE LEVEL
Vipin P. G. Ghosh 1, A,C-F  
,   V. Hemavathi 1, B-C,E-F
 
More details
Hide details
1
JSS Institute of Speech and Hearing, Mysore, India
A - Research concept and design; B - Collection and/or assembly of data; C - Data analysis and interpretation; D - Writing the article; E - Critical revision of the article; F - Final approval of article;
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Vipin P. G. Ghosh   

Vipin Ghosh P. G., JSS Institute of Speech and Hearing, M G Road, Mysore-570004, Karnataka, India, e-mail: vipinghosh78@gmail.com, phone: +91 9844489366
Publication date: 2020-04-07
 
J Hear Sci 2019;9(2):19–24
 
KEYWORDS
ABSTRACT
Background:
The Acceptable Noise Level (ANL) is a measure of an individual’s ability to tolerate background noise while listening to speech. Based on their ANL scores, people can be categorised into ‘low’, ‘mid’, or ‘high’ ANL groups. However, there are reports of subtle central auditory effects on the variation of ANL in normal hearing subjects. Because these reports are based on various objective test findings and interpretations, process-based central auditory testing and subjective authentication is essential in order to understand central involvement in individuals with various degrees of ANL.

Methods:
A total of 106 Kannada-speaking adults with normal hearing sensitivity participated in the study. Their ANLs were measured and they were then classified into ‘low’, ‘mid’, and ‘high’ groups. The temporal resolution abilities in these participants were tested using the Gap in Noise (GIN) test.

Results:
Descriptive analysis along with parametric statistical evaluations were carried out to compare the GIN scores of the three groups. One-way ANOVA revealed that the GIN scores were not statistically different (p>0.05) between the groups.

Conclusions:
The result suggests that the temporal resolution of individuals with varying degrees of ANLs is comparable. The absence of temporal resolution difficulties in individuals with varying degrees of ANL do not necessarily contradict earlier reports, as they could have other central auditory processing difficulties. More research is required to clarify these difficulties.

 
REFERENCES (18)
1.
Nabelek AK, Tucker FM, Letowski TR. Toleration of background noises: relationship with patterns of hearing aid use by elderly persons. J Speech Hear Res, 1991; 34: 679–85.
 
2.
Nabelek AK, Tampas JW, Burchfield SB. Comparison of speech perception in background noise with acceptance of background in aided and unaided conditions. J Speech Hear Res, 2004; 47: 1001–11.
 
3.
Harkrider AW, Tampas JW. Differences in responses from the cochleae and central nervous systems of females with low versus high acceptable noise levels. J Am Acad Audiol, 2006; 17: 667-76.
 
4.
Tampas JW, Harkrider AW. Auditory evoked potentials in females with high and low acceptance of background noise when listening to speech. J Acoust Soc Am, 2006; 119(3): 1548-61.
 
5.
Rogers DS, Harkrider AW, Burchfield SB, Nabelek AK. The influence of listener’s gender on the acceptance of background noise. J Am Acad Audiol, 2003; 14: 374–85.
 
6.
Crowley HJ, Nabelek IV. Estimation of client-assessed hearing aid performance based upon unaided variables. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 1996; 39: 19-27.
 
7.
Harkrider AW, Smith B. Acceptable noise level, phoneme recognition in noise, and auditory efferent measures. J Am Acad Audiol, 2005; 16: 530-45.
 
8.
Musiek FE, Shinn JB, Jirsa R, Bamiou DE, Baran JA, Zaida E. GIN (Gaps-In-Noise) test performance in subjects with confirmed central auditory nervous system involvement. Ear Hear, 2005; 26(6): 608-18.
 
9.
Shinn JB. Temporal processing and temporal patterning tests. In: Handbook of (Central) Auditory Processing Disorder: Auditory neuroscience and diagnosis. Vol. 1. San Diego, Plural Publishing; 2007. pp. 231-56.
 
10.
Harris KC, Eckert MA, Ahlstrom JB, Dubno JR. Age-related differences in gap detection: effects of task difficulty and cognitive ability. Hear Res, 2010; 264: 21-9.
 
11.
Grassi M, Soranzo A. MLP: a MATLAB toolbox for rapid and reliable auditory threshold estimation. Behav Res Methods, 2009; 41(1): 20-8.
 
12.
Weihing JS, Musiek FE, Shinn JB. The effect of presentation level on the Gap-In-Noise (GIN) test. J Am Acad Audiol, 2007; 18: 141-50.
 
13.
Jain S, Dwarkanath VM. Effect of tinnitus location on the psychoacoustic measures of hearing. Hear Bal Commun, 2016; 14(1): 8–19.
 
14.
Fournier P, Héber S. (2013). Gap detection deficits in humans with tinnitus as assessed with the acoustic startle paradigm: Does tinnitus fill in the gap? Hear Res2013; 295: 16–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hear....
 
15.
Sanches SGG, Samelli AG, Nishiyama AK, Sanchez TG, Carvallo RMM. GIN test (Gaps-in-Noise) in normal listeners with and without tinnitus. Pro Fono, 2010; 22(3): 257-62.
 
16.
Vahid MG, Masumeh R, Parvane M, Amin A, Mohammad HNK, Jalal S, Alireza KY, Hamed E. Temporal processing evaluation in tinnitus patients: results on analysis of gap in noise and duration pattern test. Iran J Otorhinolaryngol, 2013; 25(73): 221-6.
 
17.
Kumar A, Syed KA, Sangamanatha AV. Temporal and speech processing skills in normal hearing individuals exposed to occupational noise. Noise Health, 2012; 14: 100-5.
 
18.
Vipin G, Sharmada K, Meera RA. Effect of long-term exposure to traffic noise on auditory temporal resolution of traffic police: a preliminary study. J Hear Sci, 2016; 6(4): 50-4.