Download PDF
J Am Acad Audiol 2018; 29(07): 596-608
DOI: 10.3766/jaaa.16159
Articles
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

The Influence of Speech Rate on Acceptable Noise Levels

Shelby Tiffin
*   University of South Alabama, Mobile, AL
,
Susan Gordon-Hickey
*   University of South Alabama, Mobile, AL
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
29 May 2020 (online)

Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background:

Older adults often struggle with accurate perception of rate-altered speech and have difficulty understanding speech in noise. The acceptable noise level (ANL) quantifies a listener’s willingness to listen to speech in background noise and has been found to accurately predict hearing aid success. Based on the difficulty older adults experience with rapid speech, we were interested in how older adults may change the amount of background noise they willingly accept in a variety of speech rate conditions.

Purpose:

To determine the effects of age and speech rate on the ANL.

Research Design:

A quasi-experimental mixed design was employed.

Study Sample:

Fifteen young adults (19–27 yr) and fifteen older adults (55–73 yr) with audiometrically normal hearing or hearing loss within age-normed limits served as participants.

Data Collection and Analysis:

Most comfortable listening levels (MCLs) and background noise levels (BNLs) were measured using three different speech rates (slow, normal, and fast). The ANL was calculated by subtracting BNL from MCL. Repeated measures analysis of variances were used to analyze the effects of age and speech rate on ANL.

Results:

A significant main effect of speech rate was observed; however, a significant main effect of age was not found. Results indicated that as speech rate increased the ANLs increased. This suggests that participants became less accepting of background noise as speech rates increased.

Conclusions:

The findings of the present study provide support for communication strategies that recommend slowing an individual’s speaking rate and/or reducing background noise, if possible. Participants in the present study were better able to cope with background noise when the primary stimulus was presented at slow and normal speaking rates.

Key Words

acceptable noise level - background noise level - most comfortable listening level - speech rate - temporal processing
 

  • REFERENCES

  • Adams EM, Gordon-Hickey S, Moore RE, Morlas H. 2010; Effects of reverberation on acceptable noise level measurements in younger and older adults. Int J Audiol 49 (11) 832-838
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Adams EM, Gordon-Hickey S, Morlas H, Moore R. 2012; Effect of rate-alteration on speech perception in noise in older adults with normal hearing and hearing impairment. Am J Audiol 21 (01) 22-32
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Adams EM, Moore RE. 2009; Effects of speech rate, background noise, and simulated hearing loss on speech rate judgment and speech intelligibility in young listeners. J Am Acad Audiol 20 (01) 28-39
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Adobe Audition 2004. Version 1.5. San Jose, CA: Adobe Systems Incorporated; [Computer software]
    Google Scholar
  • Ahlstrom JB, Horwitz AR, Dubno JR. 2009; Spatial benefit of bilateral hearing AIDS. Ear Hear 30 (02) 203-218
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • American National Standards Institute 2008. Maximum Permissible Ambient Noise Levels for Audiometric Test Rooms (ANSI S3.1-2003). New York, NY: American National Standards Institute;
    Google Scholar
  • American National Standards Institute 2010. American National Standards Specification for Audiometers ANSI S3. 6-2010. (Revision of ANSI S3. 6-1996, 2004). New York, NY: American National Standards Institute;
    Google Scholar
  • Bilger RC, Nuetzel JM, Rabinowitz WM, Rzeczkowski C. 1984; Standardization of a test of speech perception in noise. J Speech Hear Res 27 (01) 32-48
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Crowley HJ, Nabelek IV. 1996; Estimation of client-assessed hearing aid performance based upon unaided variables. J Speech Hear Res 39 (01) 19-27
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Cruickshanks KJ, Wiley TL, Tweed TS, Klein BE, Klein R, Mares-Perlman JA, Nondahl DM. 1998; Prevalence of hearing loss in older adults in Beaver Dam, Wisconsin: The epidemiology of hearing loss study. Am J Epidemiol 148 (09) 879-886
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Erdfelder E, Faul F, Buchner A. 1996; GPOWER: a general power analysis program. Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput 28 (01) 1-11
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Etymotic Research 2001. QuickSIN Speech-in-Noise Test (Version 1.3). Elk Grove Village, IL: Etymotic;
    Google Scholar
  • Freyaldenhoven MC, Nabelek AK, Burchfield SB, Thelin JW. 2005; Acceptable noise level as a measure of directional hearing aid benefit. J Am Acad Audiol 16: 228-236
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Frye Electronics, Inc. ANL Test. Tigard, OR: Frye Electronics, Inc.
  • Gordon-Hickey S, Moore RE. 2008; Acceptance of noise with intelligible, reversed, and unfamiliar primary discourse. Am J Audiol 17 (02) 129-135
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Gordon-Hickey S, Moore RE, Estis JM. 2012; The impact of listening condition on background noise acceptance for young adults with normal hearing. J Speech Lang Hear Res 55 (05) 1356-1372
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Gordon-Hickey S, Morlas H. 2015; Speech recognition at the acceptable noise level. J Am Acad Audiol 26 (05) 443-450
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Gordon-Salant S, Fitzgibbons PJ. 1993; Temporal factors and speech recognition performance in young and elderly listeners. J Speech Hear Res 36 (06) 1276-1285
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Gordon-Salant S, Fitzgibbons PJ. 1999; Profile of auditory temporal processing in older listeners. J Speech Lang Hear Res 42 (02) 300-311
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Gordon-Salant S, Fitzgibbons PJ. 2001; Sources of age-related recognition difficulty for time-compressed speech. J Speech Lang Hear Res 44 (04) 709-719
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Gordon-Salant S, Fitzgibbons PJ. 2004; Effects of stimulus and noise rate variability on speech perception by younger and older adults. J Acoust Soc Am 115 (04) 1808-1817
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Gordon-Salant S, Fitzgibbons PJ, Friedman SA. 2007; Recognition of time-compressed and natural speech with selective temporal enhancements by young and elderly listeners. J Speech Lang Hear Res 50 (05) 1181-1193
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Gordon-Salant S, Zion DJ, Espy-Wilson C. 2014; Recognition of time-compressed speech does not predict recognition of natural fast-rate speech by older listeners. J Acoust Soc Am 136 (04) EL268-EL274
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Kalikow DN, Stevens KN, Elliott LL. 1977; Development of a test of speech intelligibility in noise using sentence materials with controlled word predictability. J Acoust Soc Am 61 (05) 1337-1351
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Mueller HG, Weber J, Hornsby BW. 2006; The effects of digital noise reduction on the acceptance of background noise. Trends Amplif 10 (02) 83-93
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Musiek FE, Shinn JB, Jirsa R, Bamiou DE, Baran JA, Zaida E. 2005; GIN (Gaps-In-Noise) test performance in subjects with confirmed central auditory nervous system involvement. Ear Hear 26 (06) 608-618
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Nabelek AK, Freyaldenhoven MC, Tampas JW, Burchfiel SB, Muenchen RA. 2006; Acceptable noise level as a predictor of hearing aid use. J Am Acad Audiol 17 (09) 626-639
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Nabelek AK, Tampas JW, Burchfield SB. 2004; Comparison of speech perception in background noise with acceptance of background noise in aided and unaided conditions. J Speech Lang Hear Res 47 (05) 1001-1011
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Nabelek AK, Tucker FM, Letowski TR. 1991; Toleration of background noises: relationship with patterns of hearing aid use by elderly persons. J Speech Hear Res 34 (03) 679-685
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Nasreddine ZS, Phillips NA, Bédirian V, Charbonneau S, Whitehead V, Collin I, Cummings JL, Chertkow H. 2005; The montreal cognitive assessment, MoCA: a brief screening tool for mild cognitive impairment. J Am Geriatr Soc 53 (04) 695-699
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Nichols AC, Gordon-Hickey S. 2012; The relationship of locus of control, self-control, and acceptable noise levels for young listeners with normal hearing. Int J Audiol 51 (04) 353-359
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Noles J. 2008. A Pocketful of History: Four Hundred Years of America - One State Quarter at a Time. Philadelphia: Da Capo Press;
    Google Scholar
  • Picheny MA, Durlach NI, Braida LD. 1986; Speaking clearly for the hard of hearing. II: acoustic characteristics of clear and conversational speech. J Speech Hear Res 29 (04) 434-446
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Plyler PN, Alworth LN, Rossini TP, Mapes KE. 2011; Effects of speech signal content and speaker gender on acceptance of noise in listeners with normal hearing. Int J Audiol 50 (04) 243-248
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Rogers DS, Harkrider AW, Burchfield SB, Nabelek AK. 2003; The influence of listener’s gender on the acceptance of background noise. J Am Acad Audiol 14 (07) 372-382 , quiz 401
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Vaughan NE, Letowski T. 1997; Effects of age, speech rate, and type of test on temporal auditory processing. J Speech Lang Hear Res 40 (05) 1192-1200
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Walravens E, Keidser G, Hartley D, Hickson L. 2014; An Australian version of the acceptable noise level test and its predictive value for successful hearing aid use in an older population. Int J Audiol 53 (Suppl 1) S52-S59
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Wingfield A. 1996; Cognitive factors in auditory performance: context, speed of processing, and constraints of memory. J Am Acad Audiol 7 (03) 175-182
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Wingfield A, Alexander AH, Cavigelli S. 1994; Does memory constrain utilization of top-down information in spoken word recognition? Evidence from normal aging. Lang Speech 37 Pt 3 221-235
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Wingfield A, Poon LW, Lombardi L, Lowe D. 1985; Speed of processing in normal aging: effects of speech rate, linguistic structure, and processing time. J Gerontol 40 (05) 579-585
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Wingfield A, Tun PA, Koh CK, Rosen MJ. 1999; Regaining lost time: adult aging and the effect of time restoration on recall of time-compressed speech. Psychol Aging 14 (03) 380-389
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Wu YH, Stangl E, Pang C, Zhang X. 2014; The effect of audiovisual and binaural listening on the acceptable noise level (ANL): establishing an ANL conceptual model. J Am Acad Audiol 25 (02) 141-153
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Yorkston KM, Beukelman DR. 1981; Communication efficiency of dysarthric speakers as measured by sentence intelligibility and speaking rate. J Speech Hear Disord 46 (03) 296-301
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar