Comparing musicians and non-musicians in signal-in-noise perception

Abstract

Objectives: The objective is to compare musicians and non-musicians in signal-in-noise perception.Design: Participants underwent the following tests: (1) High-frequency (HF) audiometry, (2) QuickSIN (a test for speech perception in noise), and (3) Binaural Masking Level Difference (BMLD) test (a test that examines the hearing threshold of a low-frequency tone from noise masking when the phase of the signal or noise in one ear is reversed with respect to the phase of the signal or noise in the other ear, i.e. the difference in the threshold for detection of the tone in noise under the S_πN_o and S_oN_o conditions).Study sample: Thirty-four healthy young normal-hearing listeners including 17 musicians (M) and 17 non-musicians (NM).Results: There were no study group difference in HF audiometry and QuickSIN. The M group had a significantly better performance under the S_oN_o but not under the S_πN_o condition. As a result, the BMLD value (S_oN_o–S_πN_o) was significantly smaller in the M group than in the NM group.Conclusions: There is a musicians’ advantage in binaural tone-in-noise detection in the BMLD task under the S_oN_o condition, suggesting that long-term music training positively shapes the auditory system.

Keywords:

• Signal-in-noise detection
• quick speech-in-noise test
• binaural masking level difference test
• musician

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank all participants for their participation in this research.

F.Z. designed and helped with experiments, analysed data, and wrote the manuscript; D.R. and C.R. performed experiments and data analysis at the University of Cincinnati; S.C. assisted D.R. and C.R. in subject recruitment. S.C. also contributed to manuscript preparation; G.V. and C.L. helped with study design, data collection and analysis, and manuscript preparation. All authors contributed equally to this work. All authors discussed the results and implications and commented on the manuscript at all stages.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Additional information

Funding

This research was funded by the University Research Council (URC) at the University of Cincinnati and the Centre for Clinical and Translational Science and Training (CCTST) grant number 1012642.