Is Acceptable Noise Level Affected by the Number of Competitive Talkers? An Implication of Informational Masking and Listening in Dips for Acceptable Noise Level Mechanism
,
Abstract
Background and Aim: The Acceptable Noise Level (ANL), which is an effective clinical tool for quantitative assessment of noise tolerance, is affected by some known variables related to both subject and testing materials. The present study examined how the characteristics of different babble noises may affect the ANL results in normal adult listeners.
Methods: Forty Persian listeners with normal hearing participated. In addition to typical ANL testing with 12-talker noise, the ANL was obtained in 8 different conditions varying in number of talkers from 2 to 10 in the babble noises presenting forward and backward.
Results: There was a significantly lower ANL for 2-talker babble compared to 4, 8, 10, and 12-talker babble in both forward and backward noise conditions. With the increase in talkers in noise, the ANL becomes worse but reaches almost a plateau with more than 4 talkers in babble noise. There was a statistically significant difference between 2-talker forward and 2-talker backward noises, with no difference for the other conditions.
Conclusion: This finding that the ANL is affected by the number of talkers in babble noise and by the forward and backward background noise suggests that informational masking and listening in dip mechanisms are involved in ANL for normal hearing people at least.
1. Roberts KL, Allen HA. Perception and Cognition in the Ageing Brain: A Brief Review of the Short- and Long-Term Links between Perceptual and Cognitive Decline. Front Aging Neurosci. 2016;8:39. [DOI:10.3389/fnagi.2016.00039]
2. Gordon-Salant S, Yeni-Komshian GH, Fitzgibbons PJ, Barrett J. Age-related differences in identification and discrimination of temporal cues in speech segments. J Acoust Soc Am. 2006;119(4):2455-66. [DOI:10.1121/1.2171527]
3. Tremblay P, Brisson V, Deschamps I. Brain aging and speech perception: Effects of background noise and talker variability. Neuroimage. 2021;227:117675. [DOI:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2020.117675]
4. Nabelek AK, Tucker FM, Letowski TR. Toleration of background noises: relationship with patterns of hearing aid use by elderly persons. J Speech Hear Res. 1991;34(3):679-85. [DOI:10.1044/jshr.3403.679]
5. Nabelek AK, Tampas JW, Burchfield SB. Comparison of speech perception in background noise with acceptance of background noise in aided and unaided conditions. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2004;47(5):1001-11. [DOI:10.1044/1092-4388(2004/074)]
6. Nabelek AK, Freyaldenhoven MC, Tampas JW, Burchfiel SB, Muenchen RA. Acceptable noise level as a predictor of hearing aid use. J Am Acad Audiol. 2006;17(9):626-39. [DOI:10.3766/jaaa.17.9.2]
7. Franklin CA Jr, Thelin JW, Nabelek AK, Burchfield SB. The effect of speech presentation level on acceptance of background noise in listeners with normal hearing. J Am Acad Audiol. 2006;17(2):141-6. [DOI:10.3766/jaaa.17.2.6]
8. Rogers DS, Harkrider AW, Burchfield SB, Nabelek AK. The influence of listener’s gender on the acceptance of background noise. J Am Acad Audiol. 2003;14(7):372-82; quiz 401. [DOI:10.1055/s-0040-1715756]
9. Jonas Brännström K, Olsen SØ. The Acceptable Noise Level and the Pure-Tone Audiogram. Am J Audiol. 2017;26(1):80-7. [DOI:10.1044/2016_AJA-16-0033]
10. Aghsoleimani M, Jalilvand H, Mahdavi ME, Nazeri AR, Kamali M. The Acceptable Noise Level Benefit From Directionality for Listeners With Severe Hearing Loss. Clin Exp Otorhinolaryngol. 2018;11(3):166-73. [DOI:10.21053/ceo.2017.01375]
11. Bryan MF, Gordon-Hickey S, Hay AL, Davis ST. Acceptable Noise Level Stability Over a One-Year Period of Time. J Am Acad Audiol. 2020;31(5):336-41. [DOI:10.3766/jaaa.19044]
12. Franklin C, Johnson LV, White L, Franklin C, Smith-Olinde L. The Relationship between Personality Type and Acceptable Noise Levels: A Pilot Study. ISRN Otolaryngol. 2013;2013:902532. [DOI:10.1155/2013/902532]
13. Nekoutabar R, Jalilvand H, Ashayeri H, Mahdavi ME, Tabatabaee SM. Effect of Pleasantness and Unpleasantness of Music on the Acceptable Noise Level. Aud Vestib Res. 2023;32(3):204-12. [DOI:10.18502/avr.v32i3.12936]
14. Koch X, Dingemanse G, Goedegebure A, Janse E. Type of Speech Material Affects Acceptable Noise Level Test Outcome. Front Psychol. 2016;7:186. [DOI:10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00186]
15. Gordon-Hickey S, Moore RE, Estis JM. The impact of listening condition on background noise acceptance for young adults with normal hearing. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2012;55(5):1356-72. [DOI:10.1044/1092-4388(2012/11-0140)]
16. Howard-Jones PA, Rosen S. Uncomodulated glimpsing in “checkerboard” noise. J Acoust Soc Am. 1993;93(5):2915-22. [DOI:10.1121/1.405811]
17. Shin JB, Lee JH. Effects of the Target Talker Gender and the Number of Competing Talkers on Acceptable Noise Level (ANL) of Korean Normal-Hearing Adults. Audiol Speech Res. 2010;6(2):146-52. [DOI:10.21848/audiol.2010.6.2.146]
18. Durlach N. Auditory masking: need for improved conceptual structure. J Acoust Soc Am. 2006;120(4):1787-90. [DOI:10.1121/1.2335426]
19. Culling JF, Stone MA. Energetic masking and masking release. Audit Syst cocktail party. In: Middlebrooks JC, Simon JZ, Popper AN, Fay RR, editors. The Auditory System at the Cocktail Party. 1st ed. New York: Springer International Publishing; 2017. p. 41-74.
20. Brungart DS. Informational and energetic masking effects in the perception of two simultaneous talkers. J Acoust Soc Am. 2001;109(3):1101-9. [DOI:10.1121/1.1345696]
21. Kidd G, Colburn HS. Informational Masking in Speech Recognition. In: Middlebrooks JC, Simon JZ, Popper AN, Fay RR, editors. The Auditory System at the Cocktail Party. New York: Springer International Publishing; 2017. p. 75-110.
22. Van Engen KJ. Speech-in-speech recognition: A training study. Lang Cogn Neurosci. 2012;27(7-8):1089-107. [DOI:10.1080/01690965.2012.654644]
23. Brungart DS, Chang PS, Simpson BD, Wang D. Multitalker speech perception with ideal time-frequency segregation: effects of voice characteristics and number of talkers. J Acoust Soc Am. 2009;125(6):4006-22. [DOI:10.1121/1.3117686]
24. Carhart R, Johnson C, Goodman J. Perceptual masking of spondees by combinations of talkers. J Acoust Soc Am. 1975;58:S35. [DOI:10.1121/1.2002082]
25. Nayana M, Sringari Parmeshwara K, Geetha C. Effect of number of talkers and language of babble on acceptable noise level in Kannada listeners. Hear Balance Commun. 2018;16(4):241-7.
26. Ahmadi A, Fatahi J, Keshani A, Jalilvand H, Modarresi Y, Jalaie S. [Developing and evaluating the reliability of acceptable noise level test in Persian language]. J Rehab Med. 2015;4(2):109-17. Persian.
27. Frank T. ANSI update: maximum permissible ambient noise levels for audiometric test rooms. Am J Audiol. 2000;9(1):3-8. [DOI:10.1044/1059-0889(2000/003)]
28. Shi LF, Azcona G, Buten L. Acceptance noise level: effects of the speech signal, babble, and listener language. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2015;58(2):497-508. [DOI:10.1044/2015_JSLHR-H-14-0244]
29. Hoen M, Meunier F, Grataloup CL, Pellegrino F, Grimault N, Perrin F, et al. Phonetic and lexical interferences in informational masking during speech-in-speech comprehension. Speech Commun. 2007;49(12):905-16. [DOI:10.1016/j.specom.2007.05.008]
2. Gordon-Salant S, Yeni-Komshian GH, Fitzgibbons PJ, Barrett J. Age-related differences in identification and discrimination of temporal cues in speech segments. J Acoust Soc Am. 2006;119(4):2455-66. [DOI:10.1121/1.2171527]
3. Tremblay P, Brisson V, Deschamps I. Brain aging and speech perception: Effects of background noise and talker variability. Neuroimage. 2021;227:117675. [DOI:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2020.117675]
4. Nabelek AK, Tucker FM, Letowski TR. Toleration of background noises: relationship with patterns of hearing aid use by elderly persons. J Speech Hear Res. 1991;34(3):679-85. [DOI:10.1044/jshr.3403.679]
5. Nabelek AK, Tampas JW, Burchfield SB. Comparison of speech perception in background noise with acceptance of background noise in aided and unaided conditions. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2004;47(5):1001-11. [DOI:10.1044/1092-4388(2004/074)]
6. Nabelek AK, Freyaldenhoven MC, Tampas JW, Burchfiel SB, Muenchen RA. Acceptable noise level as a predictor of hearing aid use. J Am Acad Audiol. 2006;17(9):626-39. [DOI:10.3766/jaaa.17.9.2]
7. Franklin CA Jr, Thelin JW, Nabelek AK, Burchfield SB. The effect of speech presentation level on acceptance of background noise in listeners with normal hearing. J Am Acad Audiol. 2006;17(2):141-6. [DOI:10.3766/jaaa.17.2.6]
8. Rogers DS, Harkrider AW, Burchfield SB, Nabelek AK. The influence of listener’s gender on the acceptance of background noise. J Am Acad Audiol. 2003;14(7):372-82; quiz 401. [DOI:10.1055/s-0040-1715756]
9. Jonas Brännström K, Olsen SØ. The Acceptable Noise Level and the Pure-Tone Audiogram. Am J Audiol. 2017;26(1):80-7. [DOI:10.1044/2016_AJA-16-0033]
10. Aghsoleimani M, Jalilvand H, Mahdavi ME, Nazeri AR, Kamali M. The Acceptable Noise Level Benefit From Directionality for Listeners With Severe Hearing Loss. Clin Exp Otorhinolaryngol. 2018;11(3):166-73. [DOI:10.21053/ceo.2017.01375]
11. Bryan MF, Gordon-Hickey S, Hay AL, Davis ST. Acceptable Noise Level Stability Over a One-Year Period of Time. J Am Acad Audiol. 2020;31(5):336-41. [DOI:10.3766/jaaa.19044]
12. Franklin C, Johnson LV, White L, Franklin C, Smith-Olinde L. The Relationship between Personality Type and Acceptable Noise Levels: A Pilot Study. ISRN Otolaryngol. 2013;2013:902532. [DOI:10.1155/2013/902532]
13. Nekoutabar R, Jalilvand H, Ashayeri H, Mahdavi ME, Tabatabaee SM. Effect of Pleasantness and Unpleasantness of Music on the Acceptable Noise Level. Aud Vestib Res. 2023;32(3):204-12. [DOI:10.18502/avr.v32i3.12936]
14. Koch X, Dingemanse G, Goedegebure A, Janse E. Type of Speech Material Affects Acceptable Noise Level Test Outcome. Front Psychol. 2016;7:186. [DOI:10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00186]
15. Gordon-Hickey S, Moore RE, Estis JM. The impact of listening condition on background noise acceptance for young adults with normal hearing. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2012;55(5):1356-72. [DOI:10.1044/1092-4388(2012/11-0140)]
16. Howard-Jones PA, Rosen S. Uncomodulated glimpsing in “checkerboard” noise. J Acoust Soc Am. 1993;93(5):2915-22. [DOI:10.1121/1.405811]
17. Shin JB, Lee JH. Effects of the Target Talker Gender and the Number of Competing Talkers on Acceptable Noise Level (ANL) of Korean Normal-Hearing Adults. Audiol Speech Res. 2010;6(2):146-52. [DOI:10.21848/audiol.2010.6.2.146]
18. Durlach N. Auditory masking: need for improved conceptual structure. J Acoust Soc Am. 2006;120(4):1787-90. [DOI:10.1121/1.2335426]
19. Culling JF, Stone MA. Energetic masking and masking release. Audit Syst cocktail party. In: Middlebrooks JC, Simon JZ, Popper AN, Fay RR, editors. The Auditory System at the Cocktail Party. 1st ed. New York: Springer International Publishing; 2017. p. 41-74.
20. Brungart DS. Informational and energetic masking effects in the perception of two simultaneous talkers. J Acoust Soc Am. 2001;109(3):1101-9. [DOI:10.1121/1.1345696]
21. Kidd G, Colburn HS. Informational Masking in Speech Recognition. In: Middlebrooks JC, Simon JZ, Popper AN, Fay RR, editors. The Auditory System at the Cocktail Party. New York: Springer International Publishing; 2017. p. 75-110.
22. Van Engen KJ. Speech-in-speech recognition: A training study. Lang Cogn Neurosci. 2012;27(7-8):1089-107. [DOI:10.1080/01690965.2012.654644]
23. Brungart DS, Chang PS, Simpson BD, Wang D. Multitalker speech perception with ideal time-frequency segregation: effects of voice characteristics and number of talkers. J Acoust Soc Am. 2009;125(6):4006-22. [DOI:10.1121/1.3117686]
24. Carhart R, Johnson C, Goodman J. Perceptual masking of spondees by combinations of talkers. J Acoust Soc Am. 1975;58:S35. [DOI:10.1121/1.2002082]
25. Nayana M, Sringari Parmeshwara K, Geetha C. Effect of number of talkers and language of babble on acceptable noise level in Kannada listeners. Hear Balance Commun. 2018;16(4):241-7.
26. Ahmadi A, Fatahi J, Keshani A, Jalilvand H, Modarresi Y, Jalaie S. [Developing and evaluating the reliability of acceptable noise level test in Persian language]. J Rehab Med. 2015;4(2):109-17. Persian.
27. Frank T. ANSI update: maximum permissible ambient noise levels for audiometric test rooms. Am J Audiol. 2000;9(1):3-8. [DOI:10.1044/1059-0889(2000/003)]
28. Shi LF, Azcona G, Buten L. Acceptance noise level: effects of the speech signal, babble, and listener language. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2015;58(2):497-508. [DOI:10.1044/2015_JSLHR-H-14-0244]
29. Hoen M, Meunier F, Grataloup CL, Pellegrino F, Grimault N, Perrin F, et al. Phonetic and lexical interferences in informational masking during speech-in-speech comprehension. Speech Commun. 2007;49(12):905-16. [DOI:10.1016/j.specom.2007.05.008]
| Files | ||
| Issue | Vol 33 No 3 (2024) | |
| Section | Research Article(s) | |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.18502/avr.v33i3.15506 | |
| Keywords | ||
| Acceptable noise level speech babble noise listening in dips informational masking energetic masking | ||
| Rights and permissions | |
|
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
How to Cite
1.
Tavakoli M, Jalilvand H, Mahdavi ME, Akbarzadeh Baghban A. Is Acceptable Noise Level Affected by the Number of Competitive Talkers? An Implication of Informational Masking and Listening in Dips for Acceptable Noise Level Mechanism. Aud Vestib Res. 2024;33(3):243-251.
