Listener Factors Associated with Individual Susceptibility to Reverberation

Abstract

Background:

Reverberation is a source of acoustic degradation, present to varying extents in many everyday listening environments. The presence of reverberation decreases speech intelligibility, especially for listeners with hearing impairment. There is substantial variability in how susceptible individuals with hearing impairment are to the effects of reverberation (i.e., how intelligible reverberant speech is to a listener). Relatively little is known about the listener factors which drive that susceptibility.

Purpose:

To identify listener factors that are associated with an individual’s susceptibility to reverberation. Another purpose was to investigate how these listener factors are associated with reverberant susceptibility in relation to the amount of reverberation. The listener factors investigated were degree of hearing loss, age, temporal envelope sensitivity, and working memory capacity.

Research Design:

This study used a correlational design to investigate the association between different listener factors and speech intelligibility with varying amounts of reverberation.

Study Sample:

Thirty-three older adults with sensorineural hearing loss participated in the study.

Data Collection and Analysis:

Listener temporal envelope sensitivity was measured using a gap detection threshold task. Listener working memory capacity was measured using the Reading Span Test. Intelligibility of reverberant speech was measured using a set of low-context sentence materials presented at 70 dB SPL without individual frequency shaping. Sentences were presented at a range of realistic reverberation times, including no reverberation (0.0 sec), moderate reverberation (1.0 sec), and severe reverberation (4.0 sec). Stepwise linear regression analyses were conducted to model speech intelligibility using individual degree of hearing loss, age, temporal envelope sensitivity, and working memory capacity. A separate stepwise linear regression model was conducted to model listener speech intelligibility at each of the three levels of reverberation.

Results:

As the amount of reverberation increased, listener speech intelligibility decreased and variability in scores among individuals increased. Temporal envelope sensitivity was most closely associated with speech intelligibility in the no reverberation condition. Both listener age and degree of hearing loss were significantly associated with speech intelligibility in the moderate reverberation condition. Both listener working memory capacity and age were significantly associated with speech intelligibility in the severe reverberation condition.

Conclusions:

The results suggest that suprathreshold listener factors can be used to best predict speech intelligibility across a range of reverberant conditions. However, which listener factor(s) to consider when predicting a listener’s susceptibility to reverberation depends on the amount of reverberation in an environment. Clinicians may be able to use different listener factors to identify individuals who are more susceptible to reverberation and would be more likely to have difficulty communicating in reverberant environments.

Key Words

reverberation - speech intelligibility - temporal envelope sensitivity - working memory capacity

This research was partially supported by a Student Investigator Research Grant from the American Academy of Audiology/American Academy of Audiology Foundation and the National Institutes of Health Grants R01 DC0060014 and R01 DC012289.

Portions of this work were presented at the Association for Research in Otolaryngology 39th MidWinter Meeting 2016, San Diego, CA, February 2016.

• REFERENCES

• Anderson S, Parbery-Clark A, White-Schwoch T, Kraus N. 2012; Aging affects neural precision of speech encoding. J Neurosci 32 (41) 14156-14164
• Daneman M, Carpenter PA. 1980; Individual differences in working memory and reading. J Verbal Learn Verbal Behav 19 (04) 450-466
• Fabry D, Tehorz J. 2005; A hearing system that can bounce back from reverberation: a new hearing aid function has been created that reduces the influence of reverberation in both directional and omnidirectional microphone modes. Hear Rev 12 (10) 48
• Folstein MF, Folstein SE, McHugh PR. 1975; “Mini-mental state”. A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J Psychiatr Res 12 (03) 189-198
• Füllgrabe C, Rosen S. 2016. Investigating the role of working memory in speech-in-noise identification for listeners with normal hearing. In: van Dijk P, Başkent D, Gaudrain E, de Kleine E, Wagner A, Lanting C. Physiology, Psychoacoustics and Cognition in Normal and Impaired Hearing. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing; 29-36
• Gordon-Salant S, Fitzgibbons PJ. 1993; Temporal factors and speech recognition performance in young and elderly listeners. J Speech Hear Res 36 (06) 1276-1285
• Gordon-Salant S, Fitzgibbons PJ. 1995; Recognition of multiply degraded speech by young and elderly listeners. J Speech Hear Res 38 (05) 1150-1156
• Gordon-Salant S, Fitzgibbons PJ. 1999; Profile of auditory temporal processing in older listeners. J Speech Lang Hear Res 42 (02) 300-311
• Hodgson M, Rempel R, Kennedy S. 1999; Measurement and prediction of typical speech and background-noise levels in university classrooms during lectures. J Acoust Soc Am 105 (01) 226-233
• Hodgson M, Steininger G, Razavi Z. 2007; Measurement and prediction of speech and noise levels and the Lombard effect in eating establishments. J Acoust Soc Am 121 (04) 2023-2033
• Houtgast T, Steeneken HJ. 1985; A review of the MTF concept in room acoustics and its use for estimating speech intelligibility in auditoria. J Acoust Soc Am 77 (03) 1069-1077
• Jerger J. 1970; Clinical experience with impedance audiometry. Arch Otolaryngol 92 (04) 311-324
• Kjellberg A. 2004; Effects of reverberation time on the cognitive load in speech communication: theoretical considerations. Noise Health 7 (25) 11-21
• Kociński J, Ozimek E. 2015; Speech intelligibility in rooms with and without an induction loop for hearing aid users. Arch Acoust 40 (01) 51-58
• Levitt H. 1971; Transformed up-down methods in psychoacoustics. J Acoust Soc Am 49: 2, Suppl):-467
• Lewis DE. 1994; Assistive devices for classroom listening. Am J Audiol 3 (01) 58-69
• Marrone N, Mason CR, Kidd Jr G. 2008; The effects of hearing loss and age on the benefit of spatial separation between multiple talkers in reverberant rooms. J Acoust Soc Am 124 (05) 3064-3075
• McCloy DR, Wright RA, Souza PE. 2015; Talker versus dialect effects on speech intelligibility: A symmetrical study. Lang and Speech 58 (03) 371-386
• Nábĕlek AK, Letowski TR, Tucker FM. 1989; Reverberant overlap- and self-masking in consonant identification. J Acoust Soc Am 86 (04) 1259-1265
• Nábělek AK, Mason D. 1981; Effect of noise and reverberation on binaural and monaural word identification by subjects with various audiograms. J Speech Hear Res 24 (03) 375-383
• Oates PA, Kurtzberg D, Stapells DR. 2002; Effects of sensorineural hearing loss on cortical event-related potential and behavioral measures of speech-sound processing. Ear Hear 23 (05) 399-415
• Pichora-Fuller MK, Singh G. 2006; Effects of age on auditory and cognitive processing: implications for hearing aid fitting and audiologic rehabilitation. Trends Amplif 10 (01) 29-59
• Reinhart PN, Souza PE. 2016; Intelligibility and clarity of reverberant speech: effects of wide dynamic range compression release time and working memory. J Speech Lang Hear Res 59 (06) 1543-1554
• Reinhart PN, Souza PE, Srinivasan NK, Gallun FJ. 2016; Effects of reverberation and compression on consonant identification in individuals with hearing impairment. Ear Hear 37 (02) 144-152
• Rönnberg J, Arlinger S, Lyxell B, Kinnefors C. 1989; Visual evoked potentials: relation to adult speechreading and cognitive function. J Speech Hear Res 32 (04) 725-735
• Rönnberg JI, Lunner T, Zekveld A, Sörqvist P, Danielsson H, Lyxell B, Dahlström O, Signoret C, Stenfelt S, Pichora-Fuller MK, Rudner M. 2013; The Ease of Language Understanding (ELU) model: theoretical, empirical, and clinical advances. Front Syst Neurosci 7: 31
• Rönnberg J, Rudner M, Foo C, Lunner T.. 2008; Cognition counts: a working memory system for ease of language understanding (ELU). Int J Audiol 47 (02) (Suppl) S99-S105
• Rosen S. 1992; Temporal information in speech: acoustic, auditory and linguistic aspects. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 336 (1278) 367-373
• Sirow L, Souza P. 2013; Selecting the optimal signal processing for your patient. Audiology Practices 5: 25-29
• Souza P, Arehart K, Neher T. 2015; Working memory and hearing aid processing: literature findings, future directions, and clinical applications. Front Psychol 6: 1894
• Slama MC, Delgutte B. 2015; Neural coding of sound envelope in reverberant environments. J Neurosci 35 (10) 4452-4468
• Studebaker GA. 1985; A “rationalized” arcsine transform. J Speech Hear Res 28 (03) 455-462
• Tremblay KL, Piskosz M, Souza P. 2003; Effects of age and age-related hearing loss on the neural representation of speech cues. Clin Neurophysiol 114 (07) 1332-1343
• Vermiglio AJ, Soli SD, Freed DJ, Fisher LM. 2012; The relationship between high-frequency pure-tone hearing loss, hearing in noise test (HINT) thresholds, and the articulation index. J Am Acad Audiol 23 (10) 779-788
• Zahorik P. 2009; Perceptually relevant parameters for virtual listening simulation of small room acoustics. J Acoust Soc Am 126 (02) 776-791