This analysis reveals age-related impacts on speech reception thresholds in individuals with normal hearing, indicating practical implications for hearing-aid users.
Previous studies have demonstrated the feasibility of estimating the speech reception threshold (SRT) based on electroencephalography (EEG), termed SRT neuro , in younger normal-hearing (YNH) participants. This method may support speech perception in hearing-aid users through continuous adaptation of noise-reduction algorithms. The prevalence of hearing impairment and thereby hearing-aid use increases with age. The SRT neuro estimation is based on envelope reconstruction accuracy, which has also been shown to increase with age, possibly due to excitatory/inhibitory imbalance or recruitment of additional cortical regions. This could affect the estimated SRT neuro . This study investigated the age-related changes in the temporal response function (TRF) and the feasibility of SRT neuro estimation across age. Twenty YNH and 22 older normal-hearing (ONH) participants listened to audiobook excerpts at various signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs) while EEG was recorded using 66 scalp electrodes and 12 in-ear-EEG electrodes. A linear decoder reconstructed the speech envelope, and the Pearson's correlation was calculated between the reconstructed and speech-stimulus envelopes. A sigmoid function was fitted to the reconstruction-accuracy-versus-SNR data points, and the midpoint was used as the estimated SRT neuro . The results show that the SRT neuro can be estimated with similar precision in both age groups, whether using all scalp electrodes or only those in and around the ear. This consistency across age groups was observed despite physiological differences, with the ONH participants showing higher reconstruction accuracies and greater TRF amplitudes. Overall, these findings demonstrate the robustness of the SRT neuro method in older individuals and highlight its potential for applications in age-related hearing loss and hearing-aid technology.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Borges et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: