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


     

Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research Vol.45 392-402 April 2002. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2002/031)
© 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 HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Bacon, S. P.
Right arrow Articles by Opie, J. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Bacon, S. P.
Right arrow Articles by Opie, J. 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 Interference in Listeners With Normal and Impaired Hearing

Sid P. Bacon 1
Jane M. Opie 1
1 Psychoacoustics Laboratory Department of Speech and Hearing Science Arizona State University Tempe

spb{at}asu.edu

Listeners were asked to detect amplitude modulation (AM) of a target (or signal) carrier that was presented in isolation or in the presence of an additional (masker) carrier. The signal was modulated at a rate of 10 Hz, and the masker was unmodulated or was modulated at a rate of 2, 10, or 40 Hz. Nine listeners had normal hearing, 4 had a bilateral hearing loss, and 4 had a unilateral hearing loss; those with a unilateral loss were tested in both ears. The listeners with a hearing loss had normal hearing at 1 kHz and a 30- to 40-dB loss at 4 kHz. The carrier frequencies were 984 and 3952 Hz. In one set of conditions, the lower frequency carrier was the signal and the higher frequency carrier was the masker. In the other set, the reverse was true. For the impaired ears, the carriers were presented at 70 dB SPL. For the normal ears, either the carriers were both presented at 70 dB SPL or the higher frequency carrier was reduced to 40 dB SPL to simulate the lower sensation level experienced by the impaired ears. There was considerable individual variability in the results, and there was no clear effect of hearing loss. These results suggest that a mild, presumably cochlear hearing loss does not affect the ability to process AM in one frequency region in the presence of competing AM from another region.

KEY WORDS: amplitude modulation, cochlear hearing loss, modulation detection interference, temporal resolution

Submitted on May 25, 2001
Accepted on November 29, 2001


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?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 TRENDS AMPLIFHome page
C. M. Reed, L. D. Braida, and P. M. Zurek
Review Article: Review of the Literature on Temporal Resolution in Listeners With Cochlear Hearing Impairment: A Critical Assessment of the Role of Suprathreshold Deficits
Trends in Amplification, March 1, 2009; 13(1): 4 - 43.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 JSLHRHome page
J. Koopman, T. Houtgast, and W. A. Dreschler
Modulation Detection Interference for Asynchronous Presentation of Masker and Target in Listeners With Normal and Impaired Hearing
J Speech Lang Hear Res, December 1, 2008; 51(6): 1588 - 1598.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
All ASHA Journals AJA AJSLP JSLHR LSHSS
Copyright © 2002 by the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association.