No description available.

No description available.

Otoacoustic emissions (OAEs) were recorded for tone bursts presented separately and as a two-tone burst complex. Signals were delivered at 70 dB SPL using a non-linear processing method and at 60 dB SPL using a linear method. Two types of stimuli were applied to record tone burst OAEs (TBOAEs): (a) cosine-windowed tone bursts of 5-ms duration with center frequencies of 1, 1.5, 2 and 3 kHz, (b) complex stimuli consisting of a digital addition of the 1-kHz tone burst together with either the 1.5-, 2- or 3-kHz tone burst. Recorded signals were processed using the method of adaptive approximations by matching pursuit (MP). The MP method allowed decomposition of signals into waveforms of defined frequency, latency, time span, and amplitude. This approach provided a high time-frequency (t-f) resolution and identified patterns of resonance modes that were characteristic for TBOAEs recorded in each ear. The effect of suppression was statistically significant only for the 1, 1.5-kHz condition and slightly greater for the non-linear mode than for the linear mode. For the dual stimulation by 1 and 1.5-kHz, the MP revealed the existence of closely positioned resonance modes associated with responses recorded individually with the stimuli differing in frequency by 500 Hz. The comparison of t-f distributions calculated for dual (two-tone bursts) and sum-of-singles conditions exhibited mutual suppression of resonance modes common to both stimuli.

Objective: The objective of the study was to determine whether short-term experience (i.e., 4 weeks) with a smartphone-based hearing aid application (SHAA) might positively improve attitudes toward amplification uptake and hearing impairment. Method: We recruited 15 experienced hearing aid wearers who had ceased wearing their devices for > 1 year (i.e., “In-the-Drawer” group) and 15 individuals with self-reported hearing difficulties who had yet to adopt hearing aids (i.e., “First-Time” group). We obtained participant attitudes preand post-SHAA using 3 surveys and analyzed perceptible changes in attitude for each survey. Comparative findings were then generalized to the health belief model in the context of perceived benefits (i.e., efficacy of an action to reduce risk) and reduced perceived barriers (i.e., tangible and psychological costs that inhibit compliance and adoption). Results: A short trial period with an SHAA appears to modify the psychological perception toward amplification and reduce listener perception with respect to hearing difficulties in both groups. Conclusion: A short trial period with an SHAA improved the perceived benefits and reduced the perceived barriers in the average First-Time listener, who often delays adoption of traditional amplification. The same trial period was also found to improve perceived benefits and reduce perceived barriers for the average In-the-Drawer listener, but to a lesser degree than their First-Time counterparts.

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.