No description available.

A variety of unusual and challenging auditory events may affect musicians and recording engineers, particularly when associated with perceptions of excessive loudness, pitch anomalies, aversions to specific sounds, and the sensation of pain in the ears. This presentation will review mechanisms associated with disordered sound tolerance (DST), including exposure characteristics, and the many physiologic changes that result in unusual auditory symptoms such as tinnitus, hyperacusis, diplacusis, and auditory nociception, or the sensation of pain in the ears triggered by sound. Consensus regarding terminology of symptoms of DST is lacking among hearing health care professionals; labeling schemes related to elements of DST will be reviewed, as will the relation between audiometric status and DST.

At equal sound exposure levels, listeners with a pre-existing hearing loss are less vulnerable to music-induced hearing damage than listeners with no hearing loss. But such listeners require and often prefer to listen to music with additional amplification. But how much gain and to what output levels (in dB) are safe is somewhat unknown at this time. In this study, we use computational models to predict hearing threshold shifts from amplified music exposure. We estimate safe output limits and corresponding free-field exposure limits for listening to music with hearing amplification by minimizing permanent and temporary threshold shifts.

No description available.

Objectives: The purpose of Experiment 1 was to measure word recognition in younger adults with normal hearing when speech or babble was temporally or spectrally distorted. In Experiment 2, older listeners with near-normal hearing and with hearing loss (for pure tones) were tested to evaluate their susceptibility to changes in speech level and distortion types. The results across groups and listening conditions were compared to assess the extent to which the effects of the distortions on word recognition resembled the effects of age-related differences in auditory processing or pure-tone hearing loss. Design: In Experiment 1, word recognition was measured in 16 younger adults with normal hearing using Northwestern University Auditory Test No. 6 words in quiet and the Words-in-Noise test distorted by temporal jittering, spectral smearing, or combined jittering and smearing. Another 16 younger adults were evaluated in four conditions using the Words-in-Noise test in combinations of unaltered or jittered speech and unaltered or jittered babble. In Experiment 2, word recognition in quiet and in babble was measured in 72 older adults with near-normal hearing and 72 older adults with hearing loss in four conditions: unaltered, jittered, smeared, and combined jittering and smearing. Results: For the listeners in Experiment 1, word recognition was poorer in the distorted conditions compared with the unaltered condition. The signal to noise ratio at 50% correct word recognition was 4.6 dB for the unaltered condition, 6.3 dB for the jittered, 6.8 dB for the smeared, 6.9 dB for the double-jitter, and 8.2 dB for the combined jitter-smear conditions. Jittering both the babble and speech signals did not significantly reduce performance compared with jittering only the speech. In Experiment 2, the older listeners with near-normal hearing and hearing loss performed best in the unaltered condition, followed by the jitter and smear conditions, with the poorest performance in the combined jitter-smear condition in both quiet and noise. Overall, listeners with near-normal hearing performed better than listeners with hearing loss by ∼30% in quiet and ∼6 dB in noise. In the quiet distorted conditions, when the level of the speech was increased, performance improved for the hearing loss group, but decreased for the older group with near-normal hearing. Recognition performance of younger listeners in the jitter-smear condition and the performance of older listeners with near-normal hearing in the unaltered conditions were similar. Likewise, the performance of older listeners with near-normal hearing in the jitter-smear condition and the performance of older listeners with hearing loss in the unaltered conditions were similar. Conclusions: The present experiments advance our understanding regarding how spectral or temporal distortions of the fine structure of speech affect word recognition in older listeners with and without clinically significant hearing loss. The Speech Intelligibility Index was able to predict group differences, but not the effects of distortion. Individual differences in performance were similar across all distortion conditions with both age and hearing loss being implicated. The speech materials needed to be both spectrally and temporally distorted to mimic the effects of age-related differences in auditory processing and hearing loss.

Purpose: The purpose of this document is threefold: (a) review the uses of the terms “vocal fatigue,” “vocal effort,” “vocal load,” and “vocal loading” (as found in the literature) in order to track the occurrence and the related evolution of research; (b) present a “linguistically modeled” definition of the same from the review of literature on the terms; and (c) propose conceptualized definitions of the concepts. Method: A comprehensive literature search was conducted using PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Scientific Electronic Library Online. Four terms (“vocal fatigue,” “vocal effort,” “vocal load,” and “vocal loading”), as well as possible variants, were included in the search, and their usages were compiled into conceptual definitions. Finally, a focus group of eight experts in the field (current authors) worked together to make conceptual connections and proposed consensus definitions. Results: The occurrence and frequency of “vocal load,” “vocal loading,” “vocal effort,” and “vocal fatigue” in the literature are presented, and summary definitions are developed. The results indicate that these terms appear to be often interchanged with blurred distinctions. Therefore, the focus group proposes the use of two new terms, “vocal demand” and “vocal demand response,” in place of the terms “vocal load” and “vocal loading.” We also propose standardized definitions for all four concepts. Conclusion: Through a comprehensive literature search, the terms “vocal fatigue,” “vocal effort,” “vocal load,” and “vocal loading” were explored, new terms were proposed, and standardized definitions were presented. Future work should refine these proposed definitions as research continues to address vocal health concerns.

Graduate Student Scholarship and Student Research Grant recipients, along with National Student Speech Language Hearing Association representatives, enjoy the 2019 ASHFoundation Founders Breakfast in Orlando.

No description available.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to determine if patient characteristics or clinical variables could predict who benefits from individual auditory training. Method: A retrospective series of analyses were performed using a data set from a large, multisite, randomized controlled clinical trial that compared the treatment effects of at-home auditory training programs in bilateral hearing aid users. The treatment arms were (a) use of the 20-day computerized Listening and Communication Enhancement program, (b) use of the 10-day digital versatile disc Listening and Communication Enhancement program, (c) use of a placebo “books-on-tape” training, and (d) educational counseling (active control). Multiple linear regression models using data from 263 participants were conducted to determine if patient and clinical variables predicted short-term improvement on word-recognition-in-noise abilities, self-reported hearing handicap, and self-reported hearing problems. Results: Baseline performance significantly predicted performance on each variable, explaining 11%–17% of the variance in improvement. The treatment arm failed to emerge as a significant predictor with other clinical variables explaining less than 9% of the variance. Conclusion: These results suggest that hearing aid users who have poorer aided word-recognition-in-noise scores and greater residual activity limitations and participation restrictions will show the largest improvement in these areas.

No description available.