Masking release differences shrink when normal listeners are tested at matched sensation level
Evidence
Next, evaluating the data from the listeners with normal hearing, we see that thresholds were much lower for the same-SL conditions than the same-SPL conditions. Here, the release from forward masking over time was greatly diminished compared with the same-SPL data measured in the same listeners. However, when we compare these data with the data from the listeners with SNHL, the masking release was still faster but only slightly. Presenting stimuli at the same sensation levels illustrates that forward-masking effects can be similar between two groups of listeners, although hearing loss is still associated with a reduced release from forward masking. — Jennifer Lentz, Psychoacoustics- Perception of Normal…, 1109
Categorization
Category: Factual Claims
- XREF: Echoes the method debate (SPL vs SL matching) seen in signal detection and loudness-recruitment studies throughout the book.
- QUESTION: Worth chasing: whether equalizing sensation level fully accounts for reduced masking release in SNHL, or whether residual differences reflect cochlear pathology proper.
Related
- Presenting speech at the same loudness minimizes forward-masking differences (similarity 0.90)
- Forward masking decay slows markedly after masker offset in hearing loss (similarity 0.88)
- Hearing loss reduces the effect of inherent noise fluctuations on speech masking. (similarity 0.86)
- Intense forward maskers produce both more masking and more release (similarity 0.85)
- Sensorineural hearing loss worsens masking beyond mere threshold elevation (similarity 0.85)
- Only simultaneous masking arises in cochlear peripheral processing (similarity 0.84)
- Raising presentation level reduces the masking-release advantage from spectrally sparse or unmodulated maskers (similarity 0.84)
- Forward-masking recovery is slower in sensorineural hearing loss regardless of audibility (similarity 0.83)
- Masking depends on stimulus fluctuations in ways steady-state models cannot predict. (similarity 0.83)
- Both spectral sparsity and lack of fluctuations in a masker release speech from masking (similarity 0.82)
- Masked tones recover pitch strength as their level rises above masked threshold (similarity 0.82)
- Masking measurements require noise slopes steeper than the ear’s own selectivity (similarity 0.82)
- Forward masking requires maskers with similar frequency components and high intensity (similarity 0.82)
- Adding a matched noise to the opposite ear can lower masking. (similarity 0.82)
- Reduced frequency selectivity partly explains diminished sensitivity to inherent masker fluctuations (similarity 0.82)