Subjective Speech Intelligibility Drives Noise-Tolerance Domain Use During the Tracking of Noise-Tolerance Test

Abstract

Objectives: Recently, the Noise-Tolerance Domains Test (NTDT) was applied to study the noise-tolerance domains used by young normal-hearing (NH) listeners during noise acceptance decisions. In this study, we examined how subjective speech intelligibility may drive noise acceptance decisions by applying the NTDT on NH and hearing-impaired (HI) listeners at the signal to noise ratios (SNRs) around the Tracking of Noise-Tolerance (TNT) thresholds. Design: A single-blind, within-subjects design with 22 NH and 17 HI older adults was followed. Listeners completed the TNT to determine the average noise acceptance threshold (TNTAve). Then, listeners completed the NTDT at the SNRs of 0, ±3 dB (re: TNTAve) to estimate the weighted noise-tolerance domain ratings (WNTDRs) for each domain criterion. Listeners also completed the Objective and Subjective Intelligibility Difference (OSID) Test to establish the individual intelligibility performance-intensity (P-I) functions of the TNT materials. All test measures were conducted at 75 and 82 dB SPL speech input levels. NH and HI listeners were tested in the unaided mode. The HI listeners were also tested using a study hearing aid. The WNTDRs were plotted against subjective speech intelligibilities extrapolated from individual P-I of the OSID at the SNRs corresponding to NTDT test conditions. Listeners were grouped according to their most heavily weighed domain and a regression analysis was performed against listener demographics as well as TNT and OSID performances to determine which variable(s) affected listener grouping. Results: Three linear mixed effects (LMEs) models were used to examine whether WNTDRs changed with subjective speech intelligibility. All three LMEs found significant fixed effects of domain criteria, subjective intelligibility, and speech input level on WNTDRs. In general, heavier weights were assigned to speech interference and loudness domains at poorer intelligibility levels (<50%) with reversals to distraction and annoyance at higher intelligibility levels (>80%). The comparison between NH and HI-unaided showed that NH listeners assigned greater weights to loudness than the HI-unaided listeners. The comparison between NH and HI-aided groups showed similar weights between groups. The comparison between HI-unaided and HI-aided found that HI listeners assigned lower weights to speech interference and greater weights to loudness when tested in aided compared with unaided modes. In all comparisons, loudness was weighed heavier at the 82 dB SPL input level than at the 75 dB SPL input level with greater weights to annoyance in the NH versus HI-unaided comparison and lower weights to distraction in the HI-aided versus HI-unaided comparison. A generalized linear model determined that listener grouping was best accounted for by subjective speech intelligibility estimated at TNTAve. Conclusions: The domain criteria used by listeners were driven by their subjective speech intelligibility regardless of their hearing status (i.e., NH versus HI). In general, when subjective intelligibility was poor, the domains of speech interference and loudness were weighed the heaviest. As subjective intelligibility improved, the weightings on annoyance and distraction increased. Furthermore, a listener’s criterion for >90% subjective speech understanding at the TNTAve may allow one to profile the listener.