Your search

PURPOSE: Autistic adults consistently report difficulties understanding speech in adverse listening environments, which may be related to differences in social communication and participation. Research examining masked-speech recognition in autistic adults is limited, particularly in competing speech backgrounds with high degrees of informational masking. This work characterizes speech-in-speech and speech-in-noise recognition in young adults on the autism spectrum, as well as evaluates self-reported functional listening abilities and listening-related fatigue. METHOD: Masked-speech recognition was evaluated in both autistic (n = 20) and non-autistic (n = 20) young adults with normal hearing. Speech reception thresholds were adaptively measured in two-talker speech and speech-shaped noise using target sentences that were either semantically meaningful or anomalous. Functional listening abilities and listening-related fatigue were assessed using the Speech, Spatial, and Qualities of Hearing Scale and the Vanderbilt Fatigue Scale for Adults. Autism characteristics and social communication experiences were quantified using the Social Responsiveness Scale-Second Edition. RESULTS: Autistic adults displayed significantly poorer speech-in-speech recognition than their non-autistic peers, while speech-in-noise recognition did not differ between groups. Functional listening difficulties in daily life and listening-related fatigue were significantly higher for autistic participants. Autism characteristics strongly predicted functional listening abilities and listening-related fatigue in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Autistic young adults experience objective speech-in-speech recognition difficulties that correspond with listening challenges in daily life. Autism characteristics and social communication experiences predict functional listening abilities reported by both autistic and non-autistic young adults with normal hearing. Speech-in-speech recognition difficulties observed here may amplify social communication challenges for adults on the autism spectrum. Future work must prioritize improved awareness of autistic listening differences.

Speech-in-speech recognition can be challenging, and listeners vary considerably in their ability to accomplish this complex auditory-cognitive task. Variability in performance can be related to intrinsic listener factors as well as stimulus factors associated with energetic and informational masking. The current experiments characterized the effects of short-term audibility of the target, differences in target and masker talker sex, and intrinsic listener variables on sentence recognition in two-talker speech and speech-shaped noise. Participants were young adults with normal hearing. Each condition included the adaptive measurement of speech reception thresholds, followed by testing at a fixed signal-to-noise ratio (SNR). Short-term audibility for each keyword was quantified using a computational glimpsing model for target+masker mixtures. Scores on a psychophysical task of auditory stream segregation predicted speech recognition, with stronger effects for speech-in-speech than speech-in-noise. Both speech-in-speech and speech-in-noise recognition depended on the proportion of audible glimpses available in the target+masker mixture, even across stimuli presented at the same global SNR. Short-term audibility requirements varied systematically across stimuli, providing an estimate of the greater informational masking for speech-in-speech than speech-in-noise recognition and quantifying informational masking for matched and mismatched talker sex.

Frequency importance functions quantify the contribution of spectral frequencies to perception. Frequency importance has been well-characterized for speech recognition in quiet and steady-state noise. However, it is currently unknown whether frequency importance estimates generalize to more complex conditions such as listening in a multi-talker masker or when targets and maskers are spatially separated. Here, frequency importance was estimated by quantifying associations between local target-to-masker ratios at the output of an auditory filterbank and keyword recognition accuracy for sentences. Unlike traditional methods used to measure frequency importance, this technique estimates frequency importance without modifying the acoustic properties of the target or masker. Frequency importance was compared across sentences in noise and a two-talker masker, as well as sentences in a two-talker masker that was either co-located with or spatially separated from the target. Results indicate that frequency importance depends on masker type and spatial configuration. Frequencies above 5 kHz had lower importance and frequencies between 600 and 1900 Hz had higher importance in the presence of a two-talker masker relative to a noise masker. Spatial separation increased the importance of frequencies between 600 Hz and 5 kHz. Thus, frequency importance functions vary across listening conditions.

Older adults with hearing loss have greater difficulty recognizing target speech in multi-talker environments than young adults with normal hearing, especially when target and masker speech streams are perceptually similar. A difference in fundamental frequency (f0) contour depth is an effective stream segregation cue for young adults with normal hearing. This study examined whether older adults with varying degrees of sensorineural hearing loss are able to utilize differences in target/masker f0 contour depth to improve speech recognition in multi-talker listening. Speech recognition thresholds (SRTs) were measured for speech mixtures composed of target/masker streams with flat, normal, and exaggerated speaking styles, in which f0 contour depth systematically varied. Computational modeling estimated differences in energetic masking across listening conditions. Young adults had lower SRTs than older adults; a result that was partially explained by differences in audibility predicted by the model. However, audibility differences did not explain why young adults experienced a benefit from mismatched target/masker f0 contour depth, while in most conditions, older adults did not. Reduced ability to use segregation cues (differences in target/masker f0 contour depth), and deficits grouping speech with variable f0 contours likely contribute to difficulties experienced by older adults in challenging acoustic environments.

Background: While maximum isometric pressure (MIP) is widely used in clinical and research settings, reduced lingual swallow pressure (LSP) has been observed in patients with dysphagia and in older healthy adults. However, limited evidence exists on the test–retest reliability of LSP across different bolus consistencies. Objective: This study assessed the test–retest reliability of LSP measurements in both younger and older adults with healthy swallowing function to identify factors influencing oral swallowing pressure. Methods: Participants 18–40 years (younger) and 60+ years (older) were assessed across four separate sessions. Bolus types included trials of saliva, thin, mildly thick and extremely thick water, randomised across study visits. Two-way mixed effects models with absolute agreement were used to calculate intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and evaluate test–retest reliability of LSP for each swallow type (regular or effortful) and bolus type. Linear mixed effects regression modelling was used to examine the factors influencing LSP. Results: A total of 51 participants were included. Test–retest reliability for LSP ranged from good to excellent across both groups (ICC = 0.79–0.98). Reliability was non-significantly higher in the older group (ICC = 0.96) and during effortful swallows (ICC = 0.94). Effort level significantly influenced LSP estimates, with effortful swallows producing about 1.83 times more lingual pressure than regular swallows. There were no significant effects of age, sex, or bolus type on LSP. Conclusion: These findings suggest that LSP measurements are reliable across measurement time points in nondysphagic participants, regardless of age, effort level, or bolus type. Only swallow effort level significantly influenced LSP estimates. © 2025 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.