Sensory SystemsSensory SystemsСенсорные системы0235-00923034-5936The Russian Academy of Sciences67580710.31857/S023500922303006XUGPERQСЛУХОВАЯ И ВЕСТИБУЛЯРНАЯ СИСТЕМЫDiscrimination of rippled spectra in listeners with hearing loss at two experimental paradigmsРазличение гребенчатых спектров у испытуемых с ослабленным слухом при двух схемах экспериментаNechaevD. I.НечаевД. И.dm.nechaev@yandex.ruMilekhinaO. N.МилехинаО. Н.dm.nechaev@yandex.ruTomozovaM. S.ТомозоваМ. С.dm.nechaev@yandex.ruSupinA. Ya.СупинА. Я.dm.nechaev@yandex.ruInstitute of Ecology and Evolution of The Russian Academy of SciencesФедеральное государственное бюджетное учреждение науки Институт проблем экологии и эволюции им. А.Н. Северцова РАН0107202337326928028022025Copyright ©; 2023, Russian Academy of SciencesCopyright ©; 2023, Российская академия наук2023Russian Academy of SciencesРоссийская академия наукhttps://journals.eco-vector.com/0235-0092/article/view/675807

Frequency resolving power (FRP) of hearing was measured in listeners 30 to 82 years old as a maximal resolved ripple density (ripples/oct) of rippled-spectrum signals. The rippled-spectrum signal should be distinguished either from another rippled signal with different positions of ripples on the frequency scale or from a “flat”-spectrum signal with no spectral ripples. Signals had either 2-oct wide frequency band centered at 1, 2, or 4 kHz, or had a wide frequency band 0.125–8 kHz. Listeners older than 60 had substantially increased tonal thresholds (haring loss). If the listener should distinguish a rippled test signal from a rippled reference signal, FRP correlated with the tonal threshold: the higher threshold, the lower FRP. For all the signals, the trend of the dependence was from –0.04 to –0.07 ripples/oct·dB. It is suggested that in this case, the test and reference signals were discriminated by the spectral mechanism and depended on the interrelation between the ripple density and acuteness of the frequency-tuned filters. If the listener should distinguish the ripple test signal from a flat reference signal, the FRP dependence on tonal threshold was not statistically significant for 2-oct-wide signals on condition that the signal level was above threshold. Or the wide-band signal, the FRP dependence on tonal threshold was statistically significant with a trend of –1.23 ripples/oct·dB. It is suggested that in this case, the test and reference signal were discriminated by the temporal-processing mechanism and depended on the perceived frequency range.

У испытуемых в возрасте от 30 до 82 лет измеряли частотную разрешающую способность (ЧРС) слуха как предельную плотность (цикл/окт) гребней спектра, при которой сигнал с гребенчатым спектром отличался от сигнала с другим расположением гребней на частотной шкале либо от сигнала с “плоским” (без гребенчатого рисунка) спектром. Сигналы имели либо спектральную полосу шириной 2 окт, центрированную на частотах 1, 2 или 4 кГц, либо широкую спектральную полосу (6 окт, от 0.125 до 8 кГц). Испытуемые старше 60 лет обнаруживали значительное повышение порогов обнаружения тонов по сравнению с нормой (тугоухость). Наблюдали корреляцию ЧРС с порогами обнаружения тона: чем выше порог, тем ниже ЧРС, если задача испытуемого состояла в различении сигналов с разным расположением гребней на шкале частот. Зависимость была статистически достоверной и составляла от –0.04 до –0.07 (цикл/окт)/дБ как для 2-окт, так и для 6-окт сигналов. Предполагается, что в этом случае различение двух сигналов было обусловлено преимущественно спектральным механизмом и зависело от соотношения плотности гребней в спектре сигнала и остроты настройки слуховых фильтров. Если задача состояла в различении гребенчатого и плоского сигналов, для 2-октавных сигналов связь между ЧРС и порогами обнаружения тона не была статистически достоверной. Для широкополосных сигналов связь была статистически достоверной и составляла –1.23 (цикл/окт)/дБ. Предполагается, что различение между сигналами с гребенчатым и плоским спектром обусловлено преимущественно временным анализом и зависело от того, насколько широкий диапазон звуковых частот доступен для восприятия.

hearinghearing lossrippled spectraspectral discriminationtemporal processingслухтугоухостьгребенчатые спектрыспектральное различениевременной анализAnderson E.S., Oxenham A.J., Nelson P.B., Nelson D.A. Assessing the role of spectral and intensity cues in spectral ripple detection and discrimination on cochlear-implant users. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2012. V. 132. P. 3925–3934. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.4763999Bernstein J.G.W., Golbarg M.G., Shamma S., Gallun F.J., Theodoroff S.M., Leek M.R. Spectrotemporal modulation sensitivity as a predictor of speech intelligibility for hearing-impaired listeners. J. Am. Acad. Audiol. 2013. V. 24. P. 293–306. https://doi.org/10.3766/jaaa.24.4.5Bilsen F.A., Ritsma R.J. (1970) Some parameters influencing the perceptibility of pitch. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1970. V. 47. P. 469–475. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1911916Chi T., Gao Y., Guyton M.C., Ru P., Shamma S. (1999). Spectro-temporal modulation transfer functions and speech intelligibility. J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 1999. V. 106. P. 2719–2732. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.428100Davies-Venn E., Nelson P., Souza P. Comparing auditory filter bandwidths, spectral ripple modulation detection, spectral ripple discrimination, and speech recognition: Normal and impaired hearing. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2015. V. 138. P. 492–503. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.4922700Festen J.M., Plomp R. Relations between auditory functions in impaired hearing. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1983. V. 73. P. 652–662. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.388957Glasberg B.R., Moore B.C.J. Auditory filter shapes in subjects with unilateral and bilateral cochlear impairments. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1986. V. 79. P. 1020–1033. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.393374He N., Mills J.H., Ahlstrom J.B., Dubno J.R. Age-related differences in the temporal modulation transfer function with pure-tone carriers. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2008. V. 124. P. 3841–3849. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.2998779Henry B.A., Turner C.W., Behrens A. Spectral peak resolution and speech recognition in quiet: Normal hearing, hearing impaired, and cochlear implant listeners. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2005. V. 118. P. 1111–1121. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1944567Hopkins K., Moore B.C.J. (2011) 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. V. 130. P. 334–349. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.3585848Horbach M., Verhey J.L., Hots J. On the pitch strength of bandpass noise in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. Trends in Hearing. 2018. V. 22. P. 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/2331216518787067Krumbholz K., Patterson R.D., Nobbe A. Asymmetry of masking between noise and iterated rippled noise: Evidence for time interval processing in the auditory system. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2001. V. 110. P. 2096–2107. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1395583Leek M.R., Summers V. Auditory filter shapes of normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners in continuous broadband noise. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1993. V. 94. P. 3127–3137. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.407218Leek M.R., Summer V. Pitch strength and pitch dominance of iterated rippled noises in hearing-impaired listeners. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2001. V. 109. P. 2944–2954. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1371761Levitt H. Transformed up-down methods in psychoacoustics. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1971. V. 49. P. 467–477. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1912375Litvak L.M., Spahr A.J., Saoji A.A., Fridman G.Y. Relationship between the perception of spectral ripple and speech recognition in cochlear implant and vocoder listeners. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2007. V. 122. P. 982–991. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.2749413Mehraei G., Gallun F.J., Leek M.R., Bernstein J.G. Spectrotemporal modulation sensitivity for hearing-impaired listeners: Dependence on carrier center frequency and the relationship to speech intelligibility. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2014. V. 136. P. 301–316. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.4881918Milekhina O.N., Nechaev D.I., Supin A.Y. Rippled-spectrum resolution dependence on frequency: Estimates obtained by discrimination from rippled and nonrippled reference signals. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2019. V. 146. P. 2231–2239. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.5127835Moore B.C.J., Vickers D.A., Plack C.J., Oxenham A.J. Inter-relationship between different psychoacoustic measures assumed to be related to the cochlear active mechanism. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1999. V. 106. P. 2761–2778. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.428133Nambi P.M.A., Sangamanatha A.V., Vikas M.D., Bhat J.S., Shama K. Perception of spectral ripples and speech perception in noise by older adults. Ageing International. 2016. V. 41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12126-016-9248-4Narne V.K., Sharma M., Van Dun B., Bansal S., Prabhu L., Moore B.C.J. Effects of spectral smearing on performance of the spectral ripple and spectro-temporal ripple test. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2016. V. 140. P. 4298–4306. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.4971419Nechaev D.I., Milekhina O.N., Supin A.Y. Estimates of ripple-density resolution based on the discrimination from rippled and nonrippled reference signals. Trends in Hearing. 2019. V. 23. https://doi.org/10.1177/2331216518824435Patterson R.D., Nimmo-Smith I., Weber D.L., Milory R. The deterioration of hearing with age: Frequency selectivity, the critical ratio, the audiogram, and speech threshold. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1982. V. 72. P. 1788–1803. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.388652Patterson R.D., Handel S., Yost W.A., Datta A.J. The relative strength of the tone and noise components in iterated rippled noise. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1996. V. 100. P. 3286–3294. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.417212Plomp R. Auditory handicap of hearing impairment and the limited benefit of hearing aids. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1978. V. 63. P. 533–549. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.381753Souza P.E., Boike K.T., Witherell K., Tremblay K.L. Prediction of speech recognition from audibility in older listeners with hearing loss: Effects of age, amplification, and background noise. J. Am. Acad. Audiol. 2007. V. 18. P. 54–65. https://doi.org/10.3766/jaaa.18.1.5Stein A., Ewert S.D., Wiegrebe L. Perceptual interaction between carrier periodicity and amplitude modulation in broadband stimuli: A comparison of the autocorrelation and modulation-filterbank model. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2005. V. 118. P. 2470–2481. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.2011427Supin A.Ya., Popov V.V., Milekhina O.N., Tarakanov M.B. Ripple depth and density resolution of rippled noise. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1999. V. 106. P. 2800–2804. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.428105Supin A.Ya., Milekhina O.N., Nechaev D., Tomozova M. Ripple density resolution dependence on ripple width. PLoS ONE. 2022. V. 17. e0270296. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0270296Yost W.A. The dominance region and ripple noise pitch: A test the peripheral weighting model. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1982. V. 72. P. 416–425. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.388094Yost W.A. Pitch strength of iterated rippled noise. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1996. V. 100. P. 3329–3335. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.416973Yost W.A., Patterson R.D., Sheft S. (1996). A time domain description for the pitch strength of iterated rippled noise. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1996. V. 99. P. 1066–1078. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.414593Yost W.A., Patterson R., Sheft S. The role of the envelope in processing iteration rippled noise. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1998. V. 104. P. 2349–2361. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.423746Zwicker E. Masking and psychophysical excitation as consequences of the ear’s frequency analysis. Frequency analysis and periodicity detection in hearing. Eds. Plomp R., Smoorenburg G.F. Leiden, the Netherlands: Sijthoff, 1970. P. 376–394.