Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T08:01:34.910Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Influence of tinnitus sound therapy signals on the intelligibility of speech

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 June 2011

A Paglialonga*
Affiliation:
CNR – Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, Istituto di Ingegneria Biomedica (ISIB), Milan, Italy Dipartimento di Bioingegneria, Politecnico di Milano, Milan, Italy
S Fiocchi
Affiliation:
CNR – Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, Istituto di Ingegneria Biomedica (ISIB), Milan, Italy Dipartimento di Bioingegneria, Politecnico di Milano, Milan, Italy
M Parazzini
Affiliation:
CNR – Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, Istituto di Ingegneria Biomedica (ISIB), Milan, Italy
P Ravazzani
Affiliation:
CNR – Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, Istituto di Ingegneria Biomedica (ISIB), Milan, Italy
G Tognola
Affiliation:
CNR – Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, Istituto di Ingegneria Biomedica (ISIB), Milan, Italy
*
Address for correspondence: Dr Alessia Paglialonga, Istituto di Ingegneria Biomedica, Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche CNR, c/o Politecnico di Milano, Piazza Leonardo da Vinci 32, I-20133 Milan, Italy Ph: +39 0223993343 Fax: +39 0223993367 E-mail: alessia.paglialonga@polimi.it

Abstract

Objective:

To assess the influence on speech intelligibility of various signals used in tinnitus sound therapy.

Materials and methods:

We measured, in normal hearing subjects, the intelligibility of speech in the presence of three different sound therapy signals: wide-band noise, a recording of moving water, and a combination of tones.

Results:

For a given level of stimulation, speech intelligibility was worst in the presence of wide-band noise, compared with the other sound therapy signals. When the stimulation level of the three different signals was increased, speech intelligibility deteriorated more rapidly with wide-band noise, compared with the other two signals. The combination of tones had the least influence on speech intelligibility.

Conclusion:

The use of different tinnitus sound therapy signals can lead to significantly different effects on the intelligibility of speech. The use of natural sound recordings or combinations of tones may provide the patient with more flexibility to change the stimulation level during treatment.

Type
Main Articles
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1Gopinath, B, McMahon, CM, Rochtchina, E, Karpa, MJ, Mitchell, P. Incidence, persistence, and progression of tinnitus symptoms in older adults: the Blue Mountains Hearing Study. Ear Hear 2010;31:407–12CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2Coles, RR. Epidemiology of tinnitus: (1) prevalence. J Laryngol Otol 1984;9(suppl):715CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3Jastreboff, MM. Sound therapies for tinnitus management. Prog Brain Res 2007;166:435–40CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4Phillips, JS, McFerran, D. Tinnitus Retraining Therapy (TRT) for tinnitus. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010;(3):CD007330CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5Henry, JA, Zaugg, TL, Myers, PJ, Schechter, MA. Using therapeutic sound with progressive audiologic tinnitus management. Trends Amplif 2008;22:188209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6Folmer, RL, Martin, WH, Shi, Y, Edlefsen, LL. Tinnitus sound therapy. In: Tyler, RS. Tinnitus Treatment. New York: Thieme, 2006;176–86Google Scholar
7Jastreboff, PJ, Jastreboff, MM. Tinnitus retraining therapy (TRT) as a method for treatment of tinnitus and hyperacusis patients. J Am Acad Audiol 2000;11:162–77Google ScholarPubMed
8Hiller, W, Haerkötter, C. Does sound stimulation have additive effects on cognitive-behavioral treatment of chronic tinnitus? Behav Res Ther 2005;43:595612CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9Kroener-Herwig, B, Biesinger, E, Gerhards, F, Goebel, G, Verena Greimel, K, Hiller, W. Retraining therapy for chronic tinnitus. A critical analysis of its status. Scand Audiol 2000;29:6778CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10Noreña, AJ, Eggermont, JJ. Enriched acoustic environment after noise trauma abolishes neural signs of tinnitus. Neuroreport 2006;17:559–63Google ScholarPubMed
11Noreña, AJ, Eggermont, JJ. Enriched acoustic environment after noise trauma reduces hearing loss and prevents cortical map reorganization. J Neurosci 2005;25:699705CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12Eggermont, JJ, Roberts, LE. The neuroscience of tinnitus. Trends Neurosci 2004;27:676–82CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13Moller, AR. The role of neural plasticity in tinnitus. Prog Brain Res 2007;166:3745CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14Brown, S, Martinez, MJ, Parsons, LM. Passive music listening spontaneously engages limbic and paralimbic systems. Neuroreport 2004;15:2033–7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15Rauschecker, JP, Leaver, AM, Mühlau, M. Tuning out the noise: limbic-auditory interactions in tinnitus. Neuron 2010;66:819–26CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16Spitzer, JB, Goldstein, BA, Salzbrenner, LG, Mueller, G. Effect of tinnitus masker noise on speech discrimination in quiet and two noise backgrounds. Scand Audiol 1983;12:197200CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17Klein, SA. Measuring, estimating, and understanding the psychometric function: a commentary. Percept Psychophys 2001;63:1421–55CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18International Organization for Standardization. ISO 7029:2000(E). Acoustics – Statistical Distribution of Hearing Thresholds as a Function of Age, ISO, Geneva, Switzerland, 2000Google Scholar
19Li, N, Loizou, PC. The contribution of obstruent consonants and acoustic landmarks to speech recognition in noise. J Acoust Soc Am 2008;124:3947–58CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20Dubno, JR, Dirks, DD. Evaluation of hearing-impaired listeners using a Nonsense Syllable Test. I. Test reliability. J Speech Hear Res 1982;25:135–41CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21Pure White Noise. Babbling Brook. Pure White Noise, Tallahassee, FL, USA, 2009Google Scholar
22Noreña, AJ, Chery-Croze, S. Enriched acoustic environment rescales auditory sensitivity. Neuroreport 2007;18:1251–5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
23Assmann, P, Summerfield, Q. The perception of speech under adverse conditions. In: Greenberg, S, Ainsworth, W, Popper, W, Fay, R, eds. Speech Processing in the Auditory System. New York: Springer, 2004;231308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24Kollmeier, B, Gilkey, RH, Sieben, UK. Adaptive staircase techniques in psychoacoustics: a comparison of human data and a mathematical model. J Acoust Soc Am 1988;83:1852–62CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
25Wichmann, FA, Hill, NJ. The psychometric function: I. Fitting, sampling, and goodness of fit. Percept Psychophys 2001;63:1293–313CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
26Treutwein, B. Adaptive psychophysical procedures. Vision Res 1995;35:2503–22CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
27Finney, DJ. Probit Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1971Google Scholar
28Leek, MR. Adaptive procedures in psychophysical research. Percept Psychophys 2001;63:1279–92CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
29Strasburger, H. Converting between measures of slope of the psychometric function. Percept Psychophys 2001;63:1348–55CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
30Lilliefors, HW. On the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for normality with mean and variance unknown. J Am Stat Assoc 1967;62:399402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
31Licklider, JCR, Guttman, N. Masking of speech by line-spectrum interference. J Acoust Soc Am 1957;29:287–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
32Rhebergen, KS, Lyzenga, J, Dreschler, WA, Festen, JM. Modeling speech intelligibility in quiet and noise in listeners with normal and impaired hearing. J Acoust Soc Am 2010;127:1570–83CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
33Ma, J, Hu, Y, Loizou, PC. Objective measures for predicting speech intelligibility in noisy conditions based on new band-importance functions. J Acoust Soc Am 2009;125:3387–405CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed