Modulation rate detection and discrimination by normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners

Ken W. Grant, Summers Van Summers, Marjorie R. Leek

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

43 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Modulation detection and modulation rate discrimination thresholds were obtained at three different modulation rates (f(m)= 80, 160, and 320 Hz) and for three different ranges of modulation depths (m): full (100%), mid (70%- 80%), and low (40%-60%) with both normal-hearing (NH) and hearing-impaired (HI) subjects. The results showed that modulation detection thresholds increased with modulation rate, but significantly more so for HI than for NH subjects. Similarly, rate discrimination thresholds (Δr) increased with increases in f(m) and decreases in modulation depth. When compared to NH subjects, rate discrimination thresholds for HI subjects were significantly worse for all rates and for all depths. At the fastest modulation rate with less than 100% modulation depth, most HI subjects could not discriminate any change in rate. When valid thresholds for rate discrimination were obtained for HI subjects, they ranged from 2.5 semitones (Δr= 12.7 Hz, f(m) = 80Hz, m=100%) to 8.7 semitones (Δr=214.5Hz, f(m)=320 Hz, m=100%). In contrast, average rate discrimination thresholds for NH subjects ranged from 0.9 semitones (Δr=4.2 Hz, f(m)=80 Hz, m= 100%) to 4.7 semitones (Δr= 103.5 Hz, f(m)=320 Hz, m=60%). Some of the differences in temporal processing between NH and HI subjects, especially those related to modulation detection, may be accounted for by differences in signal audibility, especially for high- frequency portions of the modulated noise. However, in many cases, HI subjects encountered great difficulty discriminating a change in modulation rate even though the modulation components of the standard and test stimuli were detectable.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1051-1060
Number of pages10
JournalJournal of the Acoustical Society of America
Volume104
Issue number2 I
DOIs
StatePublished - 1998

Fingerprint

hearing
discrimination
modulation
thresholds
Hearing Impairment
Listeners
Hearing
Discrimination
Modulation
stimuli

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Acoustics and Ultrasonics

Cite this

Modulation rate detection and discrimination by normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. / Grant, Ken W.; Van Summers, Summers; Leek, Marjorie R.

In: Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, Vol. 104, No. 2 I, 1998, p. 1051-1060.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Grant, Ken W. ; Van Summers, Summers ; Leek, Marjorie R. / Modulation rate detection and discrimination by normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. In: Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. 1998 ; Vol. 104, No. 2 I. pp. 1051-1060.
@article{d19c0e2509e4486db6a6d44762b3c0db,
title = "Modulation rate detection and discrimination by normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners",
abstract = "Modulation detection and modulation rate discrimination thresholds were obtained at three different modulation rates (f(m)= 80, 160, and 320 Hz) and for three different ranges of modulation depths (m): full (100{\%}), mid (70{\%}- 80{\%}), and low (40{\%}-60{\%}) with both normal-hearing (NH) and hearing-impaired (HI) subjects. The results showed that modulation detection thresholds increased with modulation rate, but significantly more so for HI than for NH subjects. Similarly, rate discrimination thresholds (Δr) increased with increases in f(m) and decreases in modulation depth. When compared to NH subjects, rate discrimination thresholds for HI subjects were significantly worse for all rates and for all depths. At the fastest modulation rate with less than 100{\%} modulation depth, most HI subjects could not discriminate any change in rate. When valid thresholds for rate discrimination were obtained for HI subjects, they ranged from 2.5 semitones (Δr= 12.7 Hz, f(m) = 80Hz, m=100{\%}) to 8.7 semitones (Δr=214.5Hz, f(m)=320 Hz, m=100{\%}). In contrast, average rate discrimination thresholds for NH subjects ranged from 0.9 semitones (Δr=4.2 Hz, f(m)=80 Hz, m= 100{\%}) to 4.7 semitones (Δr= 103.5 Hz, f(m)=320 Hz, m=60{\%}). Some of the differences in temporal processing between NH and HI subjects, especially those related to modulation detection, may be accounted for by differences in signal audibility, especially for high- frequency portions of the modulated noise. However, in many cases, HI subjects encountered great difficulty discriminating a change in modulation rate even though the modulation components of the standard and test stimuli were detectable.",
author = "Grant, {Ken W.} and {Van Summers}, Summers and Leek, {Marjorie R.}",
year = "1998",
doi = "10.1121/1.423323",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "104",
pages = "1051--1060",
journal = "Journal of the Acoustical Society of America",
issn = "0001-4966",
publisher = "Acoustical Society of America",
number = "2 I",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Modulation rate detection and discrimination by normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners

AU - Grant, Ken W.

AU - Van Summers, Summers

AU - Leek, Marjorie R.

PY - 1998

Y1 - 1998

N2 - Modulation detection and modulation rate discrimination thresholds were obtained at three different modulation rates (f(m)= 80, 160, and 320 Hz) and for three different ranges of modulation depths (m): full (100%), mid (70%- 80%), and low (40%-60%) with both normal-hearing (NH) and hearing-impaired (HI) subjects. The results showed that modulation detection thresholds increased with modulation rate, but significantly more so for HI than for NH subjects. Similarly, rate discrimination thresholds (Δr) increased with increases in f(m) and decreases in modulation depth. When compared to NH subjects, rate discrimination thresholds for HI subjects were significantly worse for all rates and for all depths. At the fastest modulation rate with less than 100% modulation depth, most HI subjects could not discriminate any change in rate. When valid thresholds for rate discrimination were obtained for HI subjects, they ranged from 2.5 semitones (Δr= 12.7 Hz, f(m) = 80Hz, m=100%) to 8.7 semitones (Δr=214.5Hz, f(m)=320 Hz, m=100%). In contrast, average rate discrimination thresholds for NH subjects ranged from 0.9 semitones (Δr=4.2 Hz, f(m)=80 Hz, m= 100%) to 4.7 semitones (Δr= 103.5 Hz, f(m)=320 Hz, m=60%). Some of the differences in temporal processing between NH and HI subjects, especially those related to modulation detection, may be accounted for by differences in signal audibility, especially for high- frequency portions of the modulated noise. However, in many cases, HI subjects encountered great difficulty discriminating a change in modulation rate even though the modulation components of the standard and test stimuli were detectable.

AB - Modulation detection and modulation rate discrimination thresholds were obtained at three different modulation rates (f(m)= 80, 160, and 320 Hz) and for three different ranges of modulation depths (m): full (100%), mid (70%- 80%), and low (40%-60%) with both normal-hearing (NH) and hearing-impaired (HI) subjects. The results showed that modulation detection thresholds increased with modulation rate, but significantly more so for HI than for NH subjects. Similarly, rate discrimination thresholds (Δr) increased with increases in f(m) and decreases in modulation depth. When compared to NH subjects, rate discrimination thresholds for HI subjects were significantly worse for all rates and for all depths. At the fastest modulation rate with less than 100% modulation depth, most HI subjects could not discriminate any change in rate. When valid thresholds for rate discrimination were obtained for HI subjects, they ranged from 2.5 semitones (Δr= 12.7 Hz, f(m) = 80Hz, m=100%) to 8.7 semitones (Δr=214.5Hz, f(m)=320 Hz, m=100%). In contrast, average rate discrimination thresholds for NH subjects ranged from 0.9 semitones (Δr=4.2 Hz, f(m)=80 Hz, m= 100%) to 4.7 semitones (Δr= 103.5 Hz, f(m)=320 Hz, m=60%). Some of the differences in temporal processing between NH and HI subjects, especially those related to modulation detection, may be accounted for by differences in signal audibility, especially for high- frequency portions of the modulated noise. However, in many cases, HI subjects encountered great difficulty discriminating a change in modulation rate even though the modulation components of the standard and test stimuli were detectable.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0031830416&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0031830416&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1121/1.423323

DO - 10.1121/1.423323

M3 - Article

C2 - 9714924

AN - SCOPUS:0031830416

VL - 104

SP - 1051

EP - 1060

JO - Journal of the Acoustical Society of America

JF - Journal of the Acoustical Society of America

SN - 0001-4966

IS - 2 I

ER -