A review of the perceptual effects of hearing loss for frequencies above 3 kHz

References

• Alexander J.M. 2013. Individual variability in recognition of frequency-lowered speech. Sem Hear, 34, 86–109.
   Google Scholar
• Ali S., Morgan M. & Ali U.I. 2014. Is it reasonable to use 1 and 8 kHz anchor points in the medico-legal diagnosis and estimation of noise-induced hearing loss? Clin Otolaryngol, 40, 255–259.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• American Medical Association 2008. Guides for the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment. Chicago, IL: American Medical Association.
   Google Scholar
• Aniansson G. 1974. Methods for assessing high frequency hearing loss in every-day listening situations. Acta Otolaryngol Suppl, 320, 1–50.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• ANSI 1969. ANSI S3.5. Methods for the Calculation of the Articulation Index. New York: American National Standards Institute.
   Google Scholar
• ANSI 1997. ANSI S3.5-1997. Methods for the Calculation of the Speech Intelligibility Index. New York: American National Standards Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Baer T., Moore B.C.J. & Kluk K. 2002. Effects of lowpass filtering on the intelligibility of speech in noise for people with and without dead regions at high frequencies. J Acoust Soc Am, 112, 1133–1144.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Besser J., Festen J.M., Goverts S.T., Kramer S.E. & Pichora-Fuller M.K. 2015. Speech-in-speech listening on the LiSN-S test by older adults with good audiograms depends on cognition and hearing acuity at high frequencies. Ear Hear, 36, 24–41.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Best V., Carlile S., Jin C. & van Schaik A. 2005. The role of high frequencies in speech localization. J Acoust Soc Am, 118, 353–363.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blauert J. 1997. Spatial Hearing: The Psychophysics of Human Sound Localization. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Borg E., Canlon B. & Engström B. 1995. Noise-induced hearing loss – Literature review and experiments in rabbits. Morphological and electrophysiological features, exposure parameters and temporal factors, variability and interactions. Scand Audiol, 24(Suppl. 40), 1–147.
   Google Scholar
• Bronkhorst A.W. & Plomp R. 1988. The effect of head-induced interaural time and level differences on speech intelligibility in noise. J Acoust Soc Am, 83, 1508–1516.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bronkhorst A.W. & Plomp R. 1989. Binaural speech intelligibility in noise for hearing-impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am, 86, 1374–1383.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brungart D.S. & Iyer N. 2012. Better-ear glimpsing efficiency with symmetrically-placed interfering talkers. J Acoust Soc Am, 132, 2545–2556.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brungart D.S. & Simpson B.D. 2007. Effect of target-masker similarity on across-ear interference in a dichotic cocktail-party listening task. J Acoust Soc Am, 122, 1724–1734.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brungart D.S., Simpson B.D., Ericson M.A. & Scott K.R. 2001. Informational and energetic masking effects in the perception of multiple simultaneous talkers. J Acoust Soc Am, 110, 2527–2538.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coles R.R., Lutman M.E. & Buffin J.T. 2000. Guidelines on the diagnosis of noise-induced hearing loss for medicolegal purposes. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci, 25, 264–273.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crouzet O. & Ainsworth W.A. 2001. On the various instances of envelope information on the perception of speech in adverse conditions: An analysis of between-channel envelope correlation. In: Workshop on Consistent and Reliable Cues for Sound Analysis, Aalborg, Denmark; 1–4.
   Google Scholar
• Demorest M.E. & Erdman S.A. 1987. Development of the communication profile for the hearing impaired. J Speech Hear Disord, 52, 129–143.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Dobie R.A. 2011. The AMA method of estimation of hearing disability: A validation study. Ear Hear, 32, 732–740.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dobie R.A. & Sakai C.S. 2001. Estimation of hearing loss severity from the audiogram. In: D. Henderson, D. Prasher, R. Kopke, R. Salvi & R. Hamernik (eds.) Noise Induced Hearing Loss: Basic Mechanisms, Prevention and Control. London, UK: Noise Research Network Publications, pp. 351–363.
   Google Scholar
• Epstein M.J., Cleveland S.S., Wang H., Liberman M.C. & Maison S.F. 2016. Hidden hearing loss in young adults: Audiometry, speech discrimination, and electrophysiology. Association for Research in Otolaryngology Midwinter Meeting, Abstract 781, San Diego.
   Google Scholar
• Fay J.P., Perkins R., Levy S.C., Nilsson M. & Puria S. 2013. Preliminary evaluation of a light-based contact hearing device for the hearing impaired. Otol Neurotol, 34, 912–921.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fletcher H. 1953. Speech and Hearing in Communication. New York: Van Nostrand.
   Google Scholar
• French N.R. & Steinberg J.C. 1947. Factors governing the intelligibility of speech sounds. J Acoust Soc Am, 19, 90–119.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Freyman R.L., Balakrishnan U. & Helfer K.S. 2001. Spatial release from informational masking in speech recognition. J Acoust Soc Am, 109, 2112–2122.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Freyman R.L., Helfer K.S., McCall D.D. & Clifton R.K. 1999. The role of perceived spatial separation in the unmasking of speech. J Acoust Soc Am, 106, 3578–3588.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Füllgrabe C., Moore B.C.J. & Stone M.A. 2015. Age-group differences in speech identification despite matched audiometrically normal hearing: Contributions from auditory temporal processing and cognition. Front Aging Neurosci, 6, 1–25.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gardner M.B. & Gardner R.S. 1973. Problem of localization in the median plane: Effect of pinnae cavity occlusion. J Acoust Soc Am, 53, 400–408.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gatehouse S. 1990. Determinants of self-reported disability in older subjects. Ear Hear, 11, 57S–65S.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Glasberg B.R. & Moore B.C.J. 1986. Auditory filter shapes in subjects with unilateral and bilateral cochlear impairments. J Acoust Soc Am, 79, 1020–1033.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gomez M.I., Hwang S.A., Sobotova L., Stark A.D. & May J.J. 2001. A comparison of self-reported hearing loss and audiometry in a cohort of New York farmers. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 44, 1201–1208.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gourevitch B., Edeline J.M., Occelli F. & Eggermont J.J. 2014. Is the din really harmless? Long-term effects of non-traumatic noise on the adult auditory system. Nat Rev Neurosci, 15, 483–491.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hamacher V., Fischer E., Kornagel U. & Puder H. 2006. Applications of adaptive signal processing methods in high-end hearing instruments. In: E. Hänsler & G. Schmidt (eds.) Topics in Acoustic Echo and Noise Control: Selected Methods for the Cancellation of Acoustical Echoes, the Reduction of Background Noise, and Speech Processing. New York: Springer, pp. 599–636.
   Google Scholar
• Hoese W.J., Podos J., Boetticher N.C. & Nowicki S. 2000. Vocal tract function in birdsong production: Experimental manipulation of beak movements. J Exp Biol, 203, 1845–1855.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hornsby B.W. & Ricketts T.A. 2006. The effects of hearing loss on the contribution of high- and low-frequency speech information to speech understanding. II. Sloping hearing loss. J Acoust Soc Am, 119, 1752–1763.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jin C., Best V., Carlile S., Baer T. & Moore B.C.J. 2002. Speech localization. In: AES 112th Convention, Munich, Germany; pp. 1–13.
   Google Scholar
• Keidser G., Dillon H., Flax M., Ching T. & Brewer S. 2011. The NAL-NL2 prescription procedure. Audiol Res, 1, e24–e90.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• King P.F., Coles R.R.A., Lutman M.E. & Robinson D.W. 1992. Assessment of Hearing Disability: Guidelines for Medicolegal Practice. London: Whurr.
   Google Scholar
• Kochkin S. 2010. MarkeTrak VIII: Consumer satisfaction with hearing aids is slowly increasing. Hear J, 63, 19–20, 22, 24, 26, 28, 30–32.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kryter K.D. 1962. Methods for the calculation and use of the articulation index. J Acoust Soc Am, 34, 1689–1697.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuhn G. 1979. The pressure transformation from a diffuse field to the external ear and to the body and head surface. J Acoust Soc Am, 65, 991–1000.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kujawa S.G. & Liberman M.C. 2009. Adding insult to injury: Cochlear nerve degeneration after “temporary” noise-induced hearing loss. J Neurosci, 29, 14077–14085.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kujawa S.G. & Liberman M.C. 2015. Synaptopathy in the noise-exposed and aging cochlea: Primary neural degeneration in acquired sensorineural hearing loss. Hear Res, 330, 191–199.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levy S.C., Freed D.J., Nilsson M., Moore B.C.J. & Puria S. 2015. Extended high-frequency bandwidth improves speech reception in the presence of spatially separated masking speech. Ear Hear, 36, e214–e224.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lutman M.E., Coles R.R. & Buffin J.T. 2015. Guidelines for quantification of noise-induced hearing loss in a medicolegal context. Clin Otolaryngol, 41, 347–357.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moore B.C.J. 2007. Cochlear Hearing Loss: Physiological, Psychological and Technical Issues (2nd edition). Chichester: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Moore B.C.J., Füllgrabe C. & Stone M.A. 2010a. Effect of spatial separation, extended bandwidth, and compression speed on intelligibility in a competing-speech task. J Acoust Soc Am, 128, 360–371.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moore B.C.J. & Glasberg B.R. 1998. Use of a loudness model for hearing aid fitting. I. Linear hearing aids. Br J Audiol, 32, 317–335.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moore B.C.J., Glasberg B.R. & Stone M.A. 2010b. Development of a new method for deriving initial fittings for hearing aids with multi-channel compression: CAMEQ2-HF. Int J Audiol, 49, 216–227.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moore B.C.J., Huss M., Vickers D.A., Glasberg B.R. & Alcántara J.I. 2000. A test for the diagnosis of dead regions in the cochlea. Br J Audiol, 34, 205–224.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Passchier-Vermeer W. 1974. Hearing loss due to continuous exposure to steady-state broad-band noise. J Acoust Soc Am, 56, 1585–1593.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Plack C.J., Barker D. & Prendergast G. 2014. Perceptual consequences of “hidden” hearing loss. Trends Hear, 18, 1–11.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Plomp R. 1978. Auditory handicap of hearing impairment and the limited benefit of hearing aids. J Acoust Soc Am, 63, 533–549.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Plomp R. 1986. A signal-to-noise ratio model for the speech-reception threshold of the hearing impaired. J Speech Hear Res, 29, 146–154.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Plomp R. & Mimpen A.M. 1979. Improving the reliability of testing the speech reception threshold for sentences. Audiology, 18, 43–53.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Rhebergen K.S. & Versfeld N.J. 2005. A Speech Intelligibility Index-based approach to predict the speech reception threshold for sentences in fluctuating noise for normal-hearing listeners. J Acoust Soc Am, 117, 2181–2192.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rønne F.M., Laugesen S., Jensen N.S. & Pederson J.H. 2016. Minimum audible angles measured with simulated normally-sized and oversized pinnas for normal-hearing and hearing-impaired test subjects. In: P. van Dijk, D. Baskent, E. Gaudrain, E. de Kleine, A. Wagner & C. Lanting (eds.) Physiology, Psychoacoustics and Cognition in Normal and Impaired Hearing. New York: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Scollie S.D., Seewald R.C., Cornelisse L., Moodie S., Bagatto M., et al. 2005. The desired sensation level multistage input/output algorithm. Trends Amplif, 9, 159–197.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Shaw E.A.G. 1974. Transformation of sound pressure level from the free field to the eardrum in the horizontal plane. J Acoust Soc Am, 56, 1848–1861.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Silberer A.B., Bentler R. & Wu Y.H. 2015. The importance of high-frequency audibility with and without visual cues on speech recognition for listeners with normal hearing. Int J Audiol, 54, 865–872.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Skinner M.W., Karstaedt M.M. & Miller J.D. 1982. Amplification bandwidth and speech intelligibility for two listeners with sensorineural hearing loss. Audiology, 21, 251–268.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Skinner M.W. & Miller J.D. 1983. Amplification bandwidth and intelligibility of speech in quiet and noise for listeners with sensorineural hearing loss. Audiology, 22, 253–279.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Smoorenburg G.F. 1992. Speech reception in quiet and in noisy conditions by individuals with noise-induced hearing loss in relation to their tone audiogram. J Acoust Soc Am, 91, 421–437.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Soderman A.C., Bagger-Sjoback D., Bergenius J. & Langius A. 2002. Factors influencing quality of life in patients with Ménière's disease, identified by a multidimensional approach. Otol Neurotol, 23, 941–948.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stamper G.C. & Johnson T.A. 2015. Auditory function in normal-hearing, noise-exposed human ears. Ear Hear, 36, 172–184.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stelmachowicz P.G., Pittman A.L., Hoover B.M. & Lewis D.E. 2001. Effect of stimulus bandwidth on the perception of /s/ in normal- and hearing-impaired children and adults. J Acoust Soc Am, 110, 2183–2190.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stone M.A. & Moore B.C.J. 2014. Amplitude-modulation detection by recreational-noise-exposed humans with near-normal hearing thresholds and its medium-term progression. Hear Res, 317, 50–62.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Studebaker G.A., Pavlovic C.V. & Sherbecoe R.L. 1987. A frequency importance function for continuous discourse. J Acoust Soc Am, 81, 1130–1138.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sumby W.H. & Pollack I. 1954. Visual contributions to speech intelligibility in noise. J Acoust Soc Am, 26, 212–215.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tremblay K.L., Pinto A., Fischer M.E., Klein B.E., Klein R., et al. 2015. Self-reported hearing difficulties among adults with normal audiograms: The Beaver Dam Offspring Study. Ear Hear, 36, e290–e299.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Turner C.W. & Henry B.A. 2002. Benefits of amplification for speech recognition in background noise. J Acoust Soc Am, 112, 1675–1680.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vickers D.A., Moore B.C.J. & Baer T. 2001. Effects of lowpass filtering on the intelligibility of speech in quiet for people with and without dead regions at high frequencies. J Acoust Soc Am, 110, 1164–1175.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wan G. & Corfas G. 2015. No longer falling on deaf ears: Mechanisms of degeneration and regeneration of cochlear ribbon synapses. Hear Res, 329, 1–10.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Warren R.M., Bashford J.A Jr & Lenz P.W. 2005. Intelligibilities of 1-octave rectangular bands spanning the speech spectrum when heard separately and paired. J Acoust Soc Am, 118, 3261–3266.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilson R.H. 2011. Clinical experience with the words-in-noise test on 3430 veterans: Comparisons with pure-tone thresholds and word recognition in quiet. J Am Acad Audiol, 22, 405–423.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar