Hearing loss with increasing age adversely affects the ability to understand speech, an effect that results partly from reduced audibility. The aims of this study were to establish whether aging reduces speech intelligibility for listeners with normal audiograms, and, if so, to assess the relative contributions of auditory temporal and cognitive processing. Twenty-one older normal-hearing (ONH; 60-79 years) participants with bilateral audiometric thresholds ≤ 20 dB HL at 0.125-6 kHz were matched to nine young (YNH; 18-27 years) participants in terms of mean audiograms, years of education, and performance IQ. Measures included: (1) identification of consonants in quiet and in noise that was unmodulated or modulated at 5 or 80 Hz; (2) identification of sentences in quiet and in co-located or spatially separated two-talker babble; (3) detection of modulation of the temporal envelope (TE) at frequencies 5-180 Hz; (4) monaural and binaural sensitivity to temporal fine structure (TFS); (5) various cognitive tests. Speech identification was worse for ONH than YNH participants in all types of background. This deficit was not reflected in self-ratings of hearing ability. Modulation masking release (improvement in speech identification obtained by amplitude modulating a noise background) and spatial masking release (benefit obtained from spatially separating masker and target speech) were not affected by age. Sensitivity to TE and TFS was lower for ONH than YNH participants, and was correlated positively with speech-in-noise (SiN) identification. Many cognitive abilities were lower for ONH than YNH participants, and generally were correlated positively with SiN identification scores. The best predictors of the intelligibility of SiN were composite measures of cognition and TFS sensitivity. These results suggest that declines in speech perception in older persons are partly caused by cognitive and perceptual changes separate from age-related changes in audiometric sensitivity.

With the advent of cognitive hearing science, increased attention has been given to individual differences in cognitive functioning and their explanatory power in accounting for inter-listener variability in the processing of speech in noise (SiN). The psychological construct that has received much interest in recent years is working memory (WM). Empirical evidence indeed confirms the association between WM capacity (WMC) and SiN identification in older hearing-impaired listeners. However, some theoretical models propose that variations in WMC are an important predictor for variations in speech processing abilities in adverse perceptual conditions for all listeners, and this notion has become widely accepted within the field. To assess whether WMC also plays a role when listeners without hearing loss process speech in adverse listening conditions, we surveyed published and unpublished studies in which the Reading-Span test (a widely used measure of WMC) was administered in conjunction with a measure of SiN identification, using sentence material routinely used in audiological and hearing research. A meta-analysis revealed that, for young listeners with audiometrically normal hearing, individual variations in WMC are estimated to account for, on average, less than 2% of the variance in SiN identification scores. This result cautions against the (intuitively appealing) assumption that individual variations in WMC are predictive of SiN identification independently of the age and hearing status of the listener.

Stone et al. [J. Acoust. Soc Am. 130, 2874–2881 (2011)], using vocoder processing, showed that the envelope modulations of a notionally steady noise were more effective than the envelope energy as a masker of speech. Here the same effect is demonstrated using non-vocoded signals. Speech was filtered into 28 channels. A masker centered on each channel was added to the channel signal at a target-to-background ratio of −5 or −10 dB. Maskers were sinusoids or noise bands with bandwidth 1/3 or 1 ERBN (ERBN being the bandwidth of “normal” auditory filters), synthesized with Gaussian (GN) or low-noise (LNN) statistics. To minimize peripheral interactions between maskers, odd-numbered channels were presented to one ear and even to the other. Speech intelligibility was assessed in the presence of each “steady” masker and that masker 100% sinusoidally amplitude modulated (SAM) at 8 Hz. Intelligibility decreased with increasing envelope fluctuation of the maskers. Masking release, the difference in intelligibility between the SAM and its “steady” counterpart, increased with bandwidth from near-zero to around 50 percentage points for the 1-ERBN GN. It is concluded that the sinusoidal and GN maskers behaved primarily as energetic and modulation maskers, respectively.

Purpose: In this study, the author sought to investigate if and when the ability to process temporal-fine-structure (TFS) cues deteriorates with age in adults with audiometrically normal hearing sensitivity. Method: Using a cross-sectional design, the author assessed TFS sensitivity in 102 normal-hearing adults sampled from across the entire range of adulthood (ages 18–90 years), using 2 psychophysical tests for the assessment of within- and across-ear TFS processing. Results: Both types of TFS sensitivity (monaural and binaural) declined gradually starting in young adulthood, with the earliest significant deficit already apparent in early midlife (i.e., between ages 40 and 49 years). TFS sensitivity was not correlated with absolute sensitivity at the test frequency. Conclusions: Some suprathreshold auditory processing abilities decline throughout adulthood, even when an individual's peripheral hearing is clinically normal. These deficits are not captured by a conventional, audiometric hearing assessment but may contribute to the increasing difficulties with age to identify speech in noisy environments. From a methodological point of view, the existence of such age effects warrants the use of age-matched participant groups when comparing normal and impaired peripheral hearing.

Objectives: It is possible for auditory prostheses to provide amplification for frequencies above 6 kHz. However, most current hearing-aid fitting procedures do not give recommended gains for such high frequencies. This study was intended to provide information that could be useful in quantifying appropriate high-frequency gains, and in establishing the population of hearing-impaired people who might benefit from such amplification. Design: The study had two parts. In the first part, wide-bandwidth recordings of normal conversational speech were obtained from a sample of male and female talkers. The recordings were used to determine the mean spectral shape over a wide frequency range, and to determine the distribution of levels (the speech dynamic range) as a function of center frequency. In the second part, audiometric thresholds were measured for frequencies of 0.125, 0.25, 0.5, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 10, and 12.5 kHz for both ears of 31 people selected to have mild or moderate cochlear hearing loss. The hearing loss was never greater than 70 dB for any frequency up to 4 kHz. Results: The mean spectrum level of the speech fell progressively with increasing center frequency above about 0.5 kHz. For speech with an overall level of 65 dB SPL, the mean 1/3-octave level was 49 and 37 dB SPL for center frequencies of 1 and 10 kHz, respectively. The dynamic range of the speech was similar for center frequencies of 1 and 10 kHz. The part of the dynamic range below the root-mean-square level was larger than reported in previous studies. The mean audiometric thresholds at high frequencies (10 and 12.5 kHz) were relatively high (69 and 77 dB HL, respectively), even though the mean thresholds for frequencies below 4 kHz were 41 dB HL or better. Conclusions: To partially restore audibility for a hearing loss of 65 dB at 10 kHz would require an effective insertion gain of about 36 dB at 10 kHz. With this gain, audibility could be (partly) restored for 25 of the 62 ears assessed.