Modelling context processing during sentence recognition in noise and reverberation for listeners with and without hearing loss

This study evaluated three models quantifying context processing in human speech recognition. We presented everyday sentences with high semantic predictability and closed word set (matrix) sentences with low semantic predictability to listeners with normal hearing and listeners with hearing loss. Sentences were presented in quiet, in steady-state noise, and in speech-like modulated noise. Reverberated and clean speech were used. We evaluated whether the models are suited for testing the following hypotheses: (1) "Listeners with hearing loss compensate reduced auditory input by relying more strongly on speech context." (2) "Speech context is used to compensate missing information differently in modulated noise than in steady state noise or in quiet, with a smaller difference in context effects for listeners with hearing loss." (3) "Context processing explains why matrix sentences are much more robust against reverberation than everyday sentences." Significance testing was performed using bootstrapping. Only one of the context models showed significant differences in context processing between normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners for the different sentence types and for different listening conditions. No differences in context processing were found between stationary and modulated noise. To explain the behavior in reverberation, it is important to distinguish between a priori context and a posteriori context.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America
Published
2025-02-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1121/10.0035801
Primary Topic
Hearing Loss and Rehabilitation
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Modelling context processing during sentence recognition in noise and reverberation for listeners with and without hearing loss

K. Sprenger, Thomas Brand
The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America
Hearing Loss and Rehabilitation
article

Modelling context processing during sentence recognition in noise and reverberation for listeners with and without hearing loss

K. Sprenger, Thomas Brand
article en

Abstract

This study evaluated three models quantifying context processing in human speech recognition. We presented everyday sentences with high semantic predictability and closed word set (matrix) sentences with low semantic predictability to listeners with normal hearing and listeners with hearing loss. Sentences were presented in quiet, in steady-state noise, and in speech-like modulated noise. Reverberated and clean speech were used. We evaluated whether the models are suited for testing the following hypotheses: (1) "Listeners with hearing loss compensate reduced auditory input by relying more strongly on speech context." (2) "Speech context is used to compensate missing information differently in modulated noise than in steady state noise or in quiet, with a smaller difference in context effects for listeners with hearing loss." (3) "Context processing explains why matrix sentences are much more robust against reverberation than everyday sentences." Significance testing was performed using bootstrapping. Only one of the context models showed significant differences in context processing between normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners for the different sentence types and for different listening conditions. No differences in context processing were found between stationary and modulated noise. To explain the behavior in reverberation, it is important to distinguish between a priori context and a posteriori context.

The Journal of the Acoustical Society of AmericaVol. 157(2)
Carl von Ossietzky Universität Oldenburg (DE), Hearing4all (DE)
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
Peace, Justice and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 98%
Hearing Loss and Rehabilitation
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.