Journal of Audiology & Otology

The Korean Audiology Society (대한청각학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Relationship between Speech Perception in Noise and Phonemic Restoration of Speech in Noise in Individuals with Normal Hearing

  • Vijayasarathy, Srikar (Department of Audiology, All India Institute of Speech and Hearing, Manasagangothri, University of Mysore-Mysuru) ;
  • Barman, Animesh (Department of Audiology, All India Institute of Speech and Hearing, Manasagangothri, University of Mysore-Mysuru)
  • Received : 2019.12.12
  • Accepted : 2020.06.10
  • Published : 2020.10.20
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Background and Objectives: Top-down restoration of distorted speech, tapped as phonemic restoration of speech in noise, maybe a useful tool to understand robustness of perception in adverse listening situations. However, the relationship between phonemic restoration and speech perception in noise is not empirically clear. Subjects and Methods: 20 adults (40-55 years) with normal audiometric findings were part of the study. Sentence perception in noise performance was studied with various signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs) to estimate the SNR with 50% score. Performance was also measured for sentences interrupted with silence and for those interrupted by speech noise at -10, -5, 0, and 5 dB SNRs. The performance score in the noise interruption condition was subtracted by quiet interruption condition to determine the phonemic restoration magnitude. Results: Fairly robust improvements in speech intelligibility was found when the sentences were interrupted with speech noise instead of silence. Improvement with increasing noise levels was non-monotonic and reached a maximum at -10 dB SNR. Significant correlation between speech perception in noise performance and phonemic restoration of sentences interrupted with -10 dB SNR speech noise was found. Conclusions: It is possible that perception of speech in noise is associated with top-down processing of speech, tapped as phonemic restoration of interrupted speech. More research with a larger sample size is indicated since the restoration is affected by the type of speech material and noise used, age, working memory, and linguistic proficiency, and has a large individual variability.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

We thank the director of All India Institute of Speech and Hearing, Mysuru and HOD, Audiology for granting us the permission to conduct the study. We are grateful to the participants of the study for their cooperation.

References

  1. Warren RM. Perceptual restoration of missing speech sounds. Science 1970;167:392-3. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.167.3917.392
  2. Verschuure J, Brocaar MP. Intelligibility of interrupted meaningful and nonsense speech with and without intervening noise. Percept Psychophys 1983;33:232-40. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03202859
  3. Samuel A. Phoneme restoration. Lang Cognitive Proc 1996;11:647-54. https://doi.org/10.1080/016909696387051
  4. Bashford JA Jr, Riener KR, Warren RM. Increasing the intelligibility of speech through multiple phonemic restorations. Percept Psychophys 1992;51:211-7. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03212247
  5. Baskent D. Effect of speech degradation on top-down repair: phonemic restoration with simulations of cochlear implants and combined electric-acoustic stimulation. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 2012;13:683-92. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10162-012-0334-3
  6. Bhargava P, Gaudrain E, Baskent D. Top-down restoration of speech in cochlear-implant users. Hear Res 2014;309:113-23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heares.2013.12.003
  7. Jaekel BN, Newman RS, Goupell MJ. Age effects on perceptual restoration of degraded interrupted sentences. J Acoust Soc Am 2018;143:84-97. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.5016968
  8. Baskent D, Eiler C, Edwards B. Effects of envelope discontinuities on perceptual restoration of amplitude-compressed speech. J Acoust Soc Am 2009;125:3995. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.3125329
  9. Bashford JA, Warren RM. Perceptual synthesis of deleted phonemes. J Acoust Soc Am 1979;65:S112. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.2016950
  10. Srinivasan S, Wang D. A schema-based model for phonemic restoration. Speech Commun 2005;45:63-87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.specom.2004.09.002
  11. Baskent D. Phonemic restoration in sensorineural hearing loss does not depend on baseline speech perception scores. J Acoust Soc Am 2010;128:EL169-74. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.3475794
  12. Benard MR, Baskent D. Perceptual learning of temporally interrupted spectrally degraded speech. J Acoust Soc Am 2014;136:1344-51. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.4892756
  13. Clarke J, Baskent D, Gaudrain E. Pitch and spectral resolution: a systematic comparison of bottom-up cues for top-down repair of degraded speech. J Acoust Soc Am 2016;139:395-405. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.4939962
  14. Hopkins K, Moore BCJ. The effects of age and cochlear hearing loss on temporal fine structure sensitivity, frequency selectivity, and speech reception in noise. J Acoust Soc Am 2011;130:334-49. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.3585848
  15. Plomp R, Mimpen AM. Speech-reception threshold for sentences as a function of age and noise level. J Acoust Soc Am 1979;66:1333-42. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.383554
  16. Saija JD, Akyurek EG, Andringa TC, Baskent D. Perceptual restoration of degraded speech is preserved with advancing age. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 2014;15:139-48. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10162-013-0422-z
  17. Bologna WJ, Vaden KI Jr, Ahlstrom JB, Dubno JR. Age effects on perceptual organization of speech: contributions of glimpsing, phonemic restoration, and speech segregation. J Acoust Soc Am 2018;144:267-81. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.5044397
  18. Vaidyanath R, Yathiraj A. Screening checklist for auditory processing in adults (SCAP-A): development and preliminary findings. J Hear Sci 2014;4:27-37. https://doi.org/10.17430/890788
  19. Venkateshan S. Ethical guidelines for bio behavioral research. 2nd ed. Mysuru, India: All India Institute of Speech and Hearing;2009.
  20. Geetha C, Kumar KSS, Manjula P, Pavan M. Development and standardisation of the sentence identification test in the Kannada language. J Hear Sci 2014;4:18-26. https://doi.org/10.17430/890267
  21. Finney DJ. Statistical method in biological assay. 3rd ed. London, UK: Charles Griffin & Co.;1978.
  22. Wilson RH, McArdle RA, Smith SL. An evaluation of the BKB-SIN, HINT, QuickSIN, and WIN materials on listeners with normal hearing and listeners with hearing loss. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2007;50:844-56. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2007/059)
  23. Killion MC, Niquette PA, Gudmundsen GI, Revit LJ, Banerjee S. Development of a quick speech-in-noise test for measuring signal-to-noise ratio loss in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am 2004;116:2395-405. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1784440
  24. Jain C. Relationship among psychophysical abilities, speech perception in noise and working memory in individuals with normal hearing sensitivity across age groups. [dissertation]. Mysuru: University of Mysore;2016. p.168.
  25. Nagaraj NK, Magimairaj BM. Role of working memory and lexical knowledge in perceptual restoration of interrupted speech. J Acoust Soc Am 2017;142:3756-3766. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.5018429
  26. Kujawa SG, Liberman MC. Adding insult to injury: cochlear nerve degeneration after "temporary" noise-induced hearing loss. J Neurosci 2009;29:14077-85. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2845-09.2009
  27. Mehraei G, Hickox AE, Bharadwaj HM, Goldberg H, Verhulst S, Liberman MC, et al. Auditory brainstem response latency in noise as a marker of cochlear synaptopathy. J Neurosci 2016;36:3755-64. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4460-15.2016
  28. Kumar UA, Ameenudin S, Sangamanatha AV. Temporal and speech processing skills in normal hearing individuals exposed to occupational noise. Noise Health 2012;14:100-5.
  29. Vijayasarathy S, Mohan M, Nagalakshmi P, Baraman A. Speech perception in noise, gap detection and amplitude modulation detection in suspected hidden hearing loss. Hearing, Balance and Communication. 2020 (Manuscript under review).
  30. Mattys SL, Davis MH, Bradlow AR, Scott SK. Speech recognition in adverse conditions: a review. Lang Cognitive Proc 2012;27:953-78. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2012.705006