Suprathreshold Processing and Cocktail Party Listening in Younger and Older Adults with Normal Hearing

  • Chandni Jain
  • Vikas Mysore DwarakanathEmail author
  • Amritha G


Present study aimed to investigate the effect of age and suprathreshold processing on cocktail party listening in individuals with normal hearing sensitivity. A total of 92 participants with normal hearing sensitivity were included in the study. They were divided into two groups based on their age. Fifty two young normal hearing adults in the age range of 20–40 years and 40 older normal hearing adults in the age range of 60-80 years. Tests administered included speech perception in noise test, spatial selective attention, gap detection thresholds, temporal modulation transfer function, inter-aural time difference, differential limen of frequency and ripple noise discrimination. Results showed that older adults performed poorer than younger adults in all the tests. Also, temporal cues showed a better relation with speech perception in noise compared to the spectral cues. This can be attributed to the disrupted neural synchrony which is due to poor frequency selectivity as observed through ripple noise discrimination. Individuals rely more on temporal cues due to poorer frequency resolution and phase locking mechanism and also on top down processes such as selective attention too. A degraded speech input would lead them to rely more on their higher cognition.


Temporal processing Spectral processing Speech perception 


Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author expresses no conflict of interest.

Financial Disclosures

No financial support was received from the government or non-government organization.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all the participants of the study and the study protocol was approved by the institutional ethical committee.

Ethical Treatment of Experimental Subjects (Human)

All procedures performed in this study involving human participants were in accordance with the ‘Ethical guidelines for bio-behavioral research involving human subjects’, All India Institute of Speech and Hearing, Mysuru and with the1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments.

Ethical Approval

This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.


  1. Babkoff, H., Muchnik, C., Ben-David, N., Furst, M., Even-Zohar, S., & Hildesheimer, M. (2002). Mapping lateralization of click trains in younger and older populations. Hearing Research, 165, 117–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Craik, F. I. M., & Byrd, M. (1982). Aging and cognitive deficits: the role of attentional resources. In F. I. M. Craik & S. Trehub (Eds.), Aging and cognitive processes (pp. 191–211). New York: Plenum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Dempster, F. N. (1991). Inhibitory processes: a negleted dimension of intelligence. Intelligence, 15, 157–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dubno, J. R., Horwitz, A. R., & Ahlstrom, J. B. (2002). Benefit of modulated maskers for speech recognition by younger and older adults with normal hearing. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 111(6), 2897–2907.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Finney, D. J. (1952). Statistical method in biological assay. London: C. Griffen.Google Scholar
  6. Gordon-Salant, S., & Fitzgibbons, P. J. (1993). Temporal factors and speech recognition performance in young and elderly listeners. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 36, 1276–1285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Grassi, M., & Soranzo, A. (2009). MLP: a MATLAB toolbox for rapid and reliable auditory threshold estimations. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 20–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Green, D. M. (1990). Stimulus selection in adaptive psychophysical procedures. Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 87, 2662–2674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Green, D. M. (1993). A maximum-likelihood method for estimating thresholds in a yes-no task. Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 93, 2096–2105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Grose, J. H., & Mamo, S. K. (2010). Processing of temporal fine structure as a function of age. Ear and Hearing, 31(6), 755–760.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Grose, J. H., Mamu, S. K., & Hall, J. W., III. (2009). Age effects in temporal envelope processing: Speech unmasking and auditory steady state responses. Ear and Hearing, 30, 568–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Helfer, K., & Freyman, R. (2008). Aging and speech-on-speech masking. Ear and Hearing, 29, 87–98.Google Scholar
  13. Helfer, K. S., & Vargo, M. (2009). Speech recognition and temporal processing in middle-aged women. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 20, 264–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hopkins, K., Moore, B. C. J., & Stone, M. A. (2008). Effects of moderate cochlear hearing loss on the ability to benefit from temporal fine structure information in speech. Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 123, 1140–1153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Huss, M., & Moore, B. C. J. (2005). Dead regions and pitch perception. Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 117, 3841–3852.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kidd, G., Arbogast, T. L., Mason, C. R., & Gallun, F. J. (2005). The advantage of knowing where to listen. Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 118, 3804–3815.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Killion, M., & Niquette, P. (2000). What can the pure-tone audiogram tell us about a patient's SNR loss? The Hearing Journal, 53(3), 46–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. MATLAB and Statistics Toolbox 7.10, The MathWorks, Inc., Natick, Massachusetts, United States.Google Scholar
  19. Methi, R., Avinash, & Kumar, U. A. (2009). Development of sentence material for Quick Speech in Noise test (Quick SIN) in Kannada. Journal of Indian Speech Language and Hearing Association, 23(1), 59–65.Google Scholar
  20. Moore, B. C. J. (2008). The role of temporal fine structure processing in pitch perception, masking, and speech perception for normal-hearing and hearing-impaired people. Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology, 9(4), 399–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Rönnberg, J., Rudner, M., Lunner, T., & Zekveld, A. A. (2010). When cognition kicks in: Working memory and speech understanding in noise. Noise & Health, 12, 26326–26329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ruggles, D., & Shinn-Cunningham, B. (2011). Spatial selective auditory attention in the presence of reverberant energy: Individual differences in normal-hearing listeners. Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology, 12(3), 395–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Salthouse, T. A. (1996). The processing-speed theory of adult age differences in cognition. Psychological Review, 103, 403–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Schoof, T., & Rosen, S. (2014). The role of auditory and cognitive factors in understanding speech in noise by normal-hearing older listeners. Frontiers of Aging Neuroscience, 6, 307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Schneider, B. A., Li, L., & Daneman, M. (2007). How competing speech interferes with speech comprehension in everyday listening situations. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 18(7), 559-572.Google Scholar
  26. Soranzo, A., & Grassi, M. (2014). PSYCHOACOUSTICS: A comprehensive MATLAB toolbox for auditory testing. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Souza, P., Arehart, K., Miller, C. W., & Muralimanohar, R. K. (2011). Effects of age on F0-discrimination and intonation perception in simulated electric and electro-acoustic hearing. Ear and Hearing, 32(1), 75–83. Scholar
  28. Zeng, F. G., Nie, K., Stickney, G. S., Kong, Y. Y., Vongphoe, M., Bhargave, A., Wei, C., & Cao, K. (2005). Speech recognition with amplitude and frequency modulations. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 102, 2293–2298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Zurek, P. M. (1993). Binaural advantages and directional effects in speech intelligibility. In G. A. Studebaker & I. Hockberg (Eds.), Acoustical factors affecting hearing aid performance (2nd ed., pp. 255–276). Needham Heights: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chandni Jain
    • 1
  • Vikas Mysore Dwarakanath
    • 1
    Email author
  • Amritha G
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of AudiologyAll India Institute of Speech and HearingMysoreIndia

Personalised recommendations