JSLHR
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


Journal of Speech and Hearing Research Vol.35 642-653 June 1992.
© American Speech-Language-Hearing Association

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow My Folders
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Bacon, S. P.
Right arrow Articles by Gleitman, R. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Bacon, S. P.
Right arrow Articles by Gleitman, R. M.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Facebook   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Modulation Detection in Subjects With Relatively Flat Hearing Losses

Sid P. Bacon 1
Ronald M. Gleitman 2

1 Department of Speech and Hearing Science Arizona State University, Tempe
2 Department of Audiology and Speech Sciences Purdue University West Lafayette, IN

Modulation detection thresholds were measured as a function of modulation frequency in 5 normal-hearing subjects and in 8 subjects with relatively flat, slight-to-moderate hearing losses. The carrier was a broadband noise that was sinusoidally amplitude modulated (SAM) in one of two observation intervals The spectrum level of the carrier ranged from –10 to 50 dB SPL, and, for a given carrier level, modulation frequency varied from 2 to 1024 Hz. The temporal modulation transfer functions (TMTFs) were fitted very well with a simple equation describing a low-pass filter function The TMTFs from the normal-hearing subjects were relatively independent of carrier level, although the derived time constant tended to increase slightly with decreases n carrier level, from an average value of 2.5 msec at 30 dB SPL to 6.0 msec at –10 dB SPL. In addition, sensitivity to amplitude modulation (AM) decreased by about 4 dB as the pressure spectrum level of the carrier was decreased from 0 to –10 dB SPL. The TMTFs from 7 of the 8 hearing-impaired subjects were similar to those from the normal-hearing subjects when the carriers were presented at equal SPLs, except that the derived time constants were slightly larger in the subjects with hearing impairment When comparisons were made at comparable sensation levels (SLs), however, the TMTFs from the two groups of subjects were quantitatively similar, with the exception that at the lowest SL (20 dB), hearing-impaired subjects typically were more sensitive to AM than normal-hearing subjects, and the derived time constants from their TMTFs were somewhat smaller These results, taken together with previously published results, suggest that a broad listening bandwidth is important for normal performance on a temporal resolution task. That the time constant from one of the hearing-impaired subjects was significantly longer than normal, regardless of whether the comparisons were made at equal SPL or equal SL, indicates that other factors can also be important

KEY WORDS: amplitude modulation, modulation detection, temporal resolution, temporal processing, hearing impairment, sensorineural hearing loss

Submitted on June 24, 1991
Accepted on September 10, 1991


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Facebook Facebook   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?





HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
All ASHA Journals AJA AJSLP JSLHR LSHSS
Copyright © 1992 by the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association.