Cochlear hearing loss spares envelope processing but amplifies perceived fluctuation via recruitment
Evidence
Although the results of Hawkins and Wightman ( 1980 ), described in Sect. 3.3 , suggested that hearing loss adversely affected the discrimination of ITD carried in ENVp , King et al. ( 2014 ) found that thresholds for detecting IPDs in ENVp were not significantly correlated with absolute thresholds. Also, Léger et al. ( 2015 ) reported that thresholds for detecting IPDs in ENVp were similar for subjects with normal and impaired hearing (both groups had a wide range of ages). Overall, the results suggest that hearing loss does not markedly affect the ability to process binaural ENV cues. — Dijk, Pim van, Physiology, Psychoacoustics and…, 822 (
#corroborates, via linked claim)
Our Wiener-kernel approach demonstrated reduced suppression in ANF responses from HI animals, which was correlated with a loss of frequency selectivity. These HI animals also exhibited reduced magnitude DPOAEs: additional evidence of reduced compressive nonlinearity. — Dijk, Pim van, Physiology, Psychoacoustics and…, 3878 (
#contradicts, via linked claim)
Categorization
- corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim
- XREF: connects to: Recruitment can explain why loudness summation is absent in noise-induced hearing loss — Professor Dr.-Ing. Hugo Fastl, Professor Dr.-Ing. Eberhard, Psychoacoustics- Facts and Models, 1960; Presbyacusis shows frequency-dependent recruitment strongest at high frequencies; Broader cochlear filters preserve envelope modulation power while electrode summation in CIs reduces it (+5 more)
Related
- Hearing loss reduces cochlear suppression and compressive nonlinearity together (similarity 0.90)
- Cochlear hearing loss spares the binaural processing of envelope cues (similarity 0.89)
- Noise-induced hearing loss reduces several independent markers of cochlear compression (similarity 0.88)
- Cochlear suppression is essential for coding complex sounds but poorly characterized in hearing loss (similarity 0.84)
- Cochlear hearing loss spares amplitude modulation detection but distorts perceived fluctuation depth (similarity 0.83)
- Sensorineural hearing loss reduces contrast in F0-synchronized neural rates across frequency (similarity 0.83)
- Cochlear gain loss can compensate for temporal coding deficits in AM detection (similarity 0.82)
- Conductive hearing loss shifts tuning curves upward without degrading frequency resolution. (similarity 0.82)
- Cochlear neuropathy and gain loss may push AM detection in opposite directions (similarity 0.82)
- Differential metrics can separate cochlear gain loss from temporal coding deficits in hearing loss (similarity 0.82)
- Cochlear gain loss can compensate for neural coding deficits (similarity 0.82)
- Age and hearing loss damage TFS but spare envelope cue processing (similarity 0.81)
- Frequency-specific hearing loss drives multi-band hearing aid processing (similarity 0.81)
- Cochlear gain loss may paradoxically enhance modulation sensitivity in broadband noise (similarity 0.81)
- Cochlear hearing loss independently degrades binaural processing of temporal fine structure (similarity 0.81)
Broader Connections
- Cochlear hearing loss spares the binaural processing of envelope cues
#corroborates(0.85) — Dijk, Pim van, Physiology, Psychoacoustics and…, 822 - Gap detection and amplitude modulation remain intact in sensorineural hearing loss
#corroborates(0.85) - Hearing loss reduces cochlear suppression and compressive nonlinearity together
#contradicts(0.80) — Dijk, Pim van, Physiology, Psychoacoustics and…, 3878 - Increasing sensorineural hearing loss shifts tone perception from fine structure to envelope cues
#qualifies(0.75) — Dijk, Pim van, Physiology, Psychoacoustics and…, 3380