An the NH listeners (asterisks in Fig. three) {were|had been

An the NH listeners (asterisks in Fig. three) were tested. One-tailed p-values had been Bonferoni corrected for (three) numerous comparisons. STM detection thresholds had been located to be substantially correlated with speech scores for the 4 c/o, four Hz situation for any 4000 Hz carrier (R 0.66, p 0.05). The PNB-0408 Correlations had been not discovered to be substantial for the two other STM circumstances for which the HI group showed poorer STM sensitivity than the NH group (1000 Hz, four Hz, two c/o: p 0.08; 1000 Hz, 12 Hz, 2 c/o: p 1). Correlations in between STM sensitivity and speechreception overall performance were re-computed right after partialling out the SII-based SRT50 prediction to ascertain irrespective of whether PubMed ID:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19920129 the octave-band STM measure provided predictive energy for speech-reception functionality beyond that offered by the audiogram. Following partialling out the contribution from the SII prediction, overall performance for both the two c/o, four Hz situation to get a 1000-Hz carrier (R 0.74, p 0.05) and the 4 c/o, four Hz condition for a 4000-Hz carrier (R 0.70, p 0.05) had been discovered to be considerably correlated to speech-receptionMehraei et al.: Spectrotemporal modulation and speechFIG. four. The measured SRT50 is plotted as a function of your SII-based predictions in the SRT50 for person HI listeners.functionality, although the third STM situation examined (1000 Hz, 12 Hz, 2 c/o) was not (p 0.21). A stepwise regression evaluation was then conducted to establish the combined predictive power in the STMsensitivity estimates for these specific circumstances and also the SII. As shown in Fig. four, SII-based SRT50 predictions fell inside a narrow selection of SNRs amongst .two and .9 dB, reflecting the truth that the SII values in noise are dominated by the statistics from the noise (the identical for all subjects) as an alternative to the variations in audiograms. As a result, audibility cannot TPOP146 account for the wide variation in measured SRT50 ( to dB). The SII-based SRT50 predictions were nonetheless hugely correlated using the measured SRT50 values, accounting for 59.four of your variance in speech intelligibility (R 0.77, p 0.005). The addition of STM sensitivity for the low-frequency carrier (2 c/o, four Hz, 1000 Hz) as a second predictor variable considerably elevated (p 0.05) the general proportion in the variance in speech-reception overall performance accounted for to 81.7 (not shown). The addition of STM sensitivity for the high-frequency carrier (4 c/o, 4 Hz, 4000 Hz) into the evaluation as a third predictor variable considerably increased (p 0.05) the general variance accounted for to 89.9 (Fig. 5). Therefore, performance for these two STM situations accounted for an extra 30 of your variance in speech-reception functionality beyond that accounted for by the audiogram-based SII. Prior outcomes have recommended a larger impact of hearing loss and suprathreshold auditory processing deficits on speech perception in modulated noise (e.g., Strelcyk and Dau, 2009). An further evaluation was carried out to decide the partnership between the SII, STM sensitivity, and the SRT50 obtained in the speech scores in speech-modulated noise reported by Summers et al. (2013). Pairwise correlations involving this SRT50 metric and the octave-band STM sensitivity scores revealed no considerable correlations for any of the 3 STM conditions for which the HI listeners performed considerably worse than the NH listeners. On the other hand, right after partialling out the SII-based SRT308 J. Acoust. Soc. Am., Vol. 136, No. 1, JulyFIG. 5. The SRT50 measured for individual HI subjects is plotted.An the NH listeners (asterisks in Fig. 3) had been tested. One-tailed p-values have been Bonferoni corrected for (3) a number of comparisons. STM detection thresholds were identified to be drastically correlated with speech scores for the four c/o, four Hz situation for any 4000 Hz carrier (R 0.66, p 0.05). The correlations had been not located to be important for the two other STM situations for which the HI group showed poorer STM sensitivity than the NH group (1000 Hz, 4 Hz, 2 c/o: p 0.08; 1000 Hz, 12 Hz, two c/o: p 1). Correlations between STM sensitivity and speechreception overall performance have been re-computed right after partialling out the SII-based SRT50 prediction to ascertain regardless of whether PubMed ID:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19920129 the octave-band STM measure supplied predictive energy for speech-reception functionality beyond that offered by the audiogram. Soon after partialling out the contribution of your SII prediction, functionality for both the two c/o, 4 Hz condition for a 1000-Hz carrier (R 0.74, p 0.05) as well as the four c/o, four Hz condition for a 4000-Hz carrier (R 0.70, p 0.05) had been identified to become significantly correlated to speech-receptionMehraei et al.: Spectrotemporal modulation and speechFIG. 4. The measured SRT50 is plotted as a function with the SII-based predictions of the SRT50 for person HI listeners.overall performance, whilst the third STM situation examined (1000 Hz, 12 Hz, two c/o) was not (p 0.21). A stepwise regression analysis was then carried out to determine the combined predictive energy on the STMsensitivity estimates for these distinct circumstances along with the SII. As shown in Fig. four, SII-based SRT50 predictions fell within a narrow array of SNRs between .two and .9 dB, reflecting the fact that the SII values in noise are dominated by the statistics on the noise (the identical for all subjects) instead of the variations in audiograms. As a result, audibility cannot account for the wide variation in measured SRT50 ( to dB). The SII-based SRT50 predictions have been nonetheless highly correlated using the measured SRT50 values, accounting for 59.four of the variance in speech intelligibility (R 0.77, p 0.005). The addition of STM sensitivity for the low-frequency carrier (two c/o, four Hz, 1000 Hz) as a second predictor variable significantly improved (p 0.05) the general proportion of the variance in speech-reception efficiency accounted for to 81.7 (not shown). The addition of STM sensitivity for the high-frequency carrier (four c/o, four Hz, 4000 Hz) in to the analysis as a third predictor variable drastically increased (p 0.05) the all round variance accounted for to 89.9 (Fig. 5). Thus, efficiency for these two STM conditions accounted for an further 30 in the variance in speech-reception overall performance beyond that accounted for by the audiogram-based SII. Earlier benefits have suggested a bigger impact of hearing loss and suprathreshold auditory processing deficits on speech perception in modulated noise (e.g., Strelcyk and Dau, 2009). An further evaluation was carried out to identify the partnership among the SII, STM sensitivity, and the SRT50 obtained from the speech scores in speech-modulated noise reported by Summers et al. (2013). Pairwise correlations among this SRT50 metric along with the octave-band STM sensitivity scores revealed no considerable correlations for any of the three STM conditions for which the HI listeners performed considerably worse than the NH listeners. Nonetheless, immediately after partialling out the SII-based SRT308 J. Acoust. Soc. Am., Vol. 136, No. 1, JulyFIG. five. The SRT50 measured for individual HI subjects is plotted.