Hearing Sensitivity to Gliding Rippled Spectra in Hearing-Impaired Listeners
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsTitle: Hearing sensitivity to gliding rippled spectra in hearing-im- 2
paired listeners.
The present study explored the perception of gliding of ripple (oct/sec) perception in normal and hearing-impaired population. The gliding of ripple perception was assessed at various ripple per octave. Although the present study contributes significantly to field of Audiology. But manuscript cannot be accepted in the present form.
Main Comments
1. Introduction needs to focus on why such stimuli were used in the present study. What additional information these stimuli provides over the current approaches used for assessing temporal processing.
2. Authors have used two conditions simultaneously. Spectral and temporal processing are affected by both hearing and also aging. In the current design, authors cannot suppurate effect of aging and hearing loss.
3. The results section, need to improve significantly for better understanding. Currently the results section is difficult to follow. I suggest the authors divide results into different sections.
4. Discussion section need to be improved further, also direct your discussion how these stimuli can be used in audiology. Further, discussion section is difficult to follow.
Minor Comments
1. There are many two sentence paragraphs. They don’t seem appropriate, consider modifying.
2. Abstract: The statement “At all ripple densities except 7 ripples/oct, there was a tendency for the limit of discriminating ripple gliding velocity to decrease with increasing degree of hearing impairment.” Is very difficult to follow.
3. Introduction, Line-64: “The analysis of such signals depends on both frequency and temporal resolution.” This statement is too simple needs more literature support to document that it is true. Further authors need provide how spectral and temporal resolution contribute.
4. Line-81-87: Authors have used small sample. Authors need to provide sufficient justification.
5. Line 235: “This difference also may be a result of different frequency band of the test stimulus”. This statement is difficult to follow. Further there is abrupt jump in concepts in this para.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThere are many two sentence paragraphs. They don’t seem appropriate, consider modifying.
There are random jumps within in para, making very difficult to follow or understand.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your work on the manuscript and for your valuable comments. We have made an effort to address and respond to all of them. An additional check was conducted to improve the English language. Furthermore, we have expanded the Methods section, where some important points were overlooked.
In the attached file, we have highlighted the most important changes in yellow.
R: Introduction needs to focus on why such stimuli were used in the present study. What additional information these stimuli provides over the current approaches used for assessing temporal processing
A: The introduction has been extended. A comment has been added that states what is the reason of the use of the present signal type in psychoacoustical investigations. (II. 61 – 66, 75 – 79).
R: Authors have used two conditions simultaneously. Spectral and temporal processing are affected by both hearing and also aging. In the current design, authors cannot suppurate effect of aging and hearing loss.
A: Yes, the present study does not allow for the separation of the effects of age and hearing loss of other origins. It is stated in Conclusions that a separate investigation of age and hearing loss should be a subject of further investigations (ll. 300-302). Additionally, it is stated that the results of the present study are applicable to the age-dependent hearing loss (ll. 193 – 195, 297 – 299).
R: The results section, need to improve significantly for better understanding. Currently the results section is difficult to follow. I suggest the authors divide results into different sections.
A: In the revised version, the section Results is subdivided into several subsections. The results of audiometry have been moved from Discussion to Results. Several summarizing sentences are added.
R: Discussion section need to be improved further, also direct your discussion how these stimuli can be used in audiology. Further, discussion section is difficult to follow.
A: Based on the obtained results, we did not try to suggest recommendation for audiology. Such recommendations could be possible based on further investigations in hearing-impaired listeners. We added a summary sentence at the end of the conclusion (II. 302 – 304).
R: There are many two sentence paragraphs. They don’t seem appropriate, consider modifying.
A: In the revised version, short paragraphs have been combined. We believe is that including whole tables with the results of Krusla-Wallis and post-hoc test in the main text makes it difficult to follow. If necessary, these tables may be supplied as a supplementary material.
R: Abstract: The statement “At all ripple densities except 7 ripples/oct, there was a tendency for the limit of discriminating ripple gliding velocity to decrease with increasing degree of hearing impairment.” Is very difficult to follow.
A: In the revised version, this sentence has been modified.
R: Introduction, Line-64: “The analysis of such signals depends on both frequency and temporal resolution.” This statement is too simple needs more literature support to document that it is true. Further authors need provide how spectral and temporal resolution contribute.
A: The paragraph has been modified (II. 60 – 66). The contribution of both frequency and temporal analysis of the signals are considered in Discussion section.
R: Line-81-87: Authors have used small sample. Authors need to provide sufficient justification.
A: Yes, the available sample of listeners was limited. We stated that due to the limited sample size, different groups of listeners exhibited substantial data scatter. Therefore, both regression and correlation analyses were used to reveal the correlation between the limits of ripple gliding velocity and tonal thresholds. It is stated in lines 292 – 294 that the obtained data only allow us to reveal a general trend in the dependence of the spectral-temporal resolution of age-dependent hearing impairment characterized by tonal thresholds.
R: Line 235: “This difference also may be a result of different frequency band of the test stimulus”. This statement is difficult to follow. Further there is abrupt jump in concepts in this para.
A: The paragraph has been modified
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis study examines the discrimination of signal envelope modulation, one of the hearing impairment mechanisms that is still under investigation today. Following a thorough explanation of the types of signals (rippled spectra) that the authors have employed and the potential mechanisms underlying age-related hearing deterioration, a detailed discussion of the materials and methods is provided.
The study involved a group of volunteers that were getting older and had a higher hearing threshold. The signal was correctly given in two references, and the subjects had to ask to be able to distinguish between the two signals. There was no explicit cue given to the listeners to help them differentiate between the reference signals (not-rippled) and the test signal (rippled). The visualizations make the data easily understandable, and the statistical analysis was done correctly. The final paragraph goes into great detail about the results, which supported earlier research on the subjects. Age-dependent hearing loss deteriorates the capacity to distinguish between the gliding velocity of spectral ripples, which affects both low- and high-density spectra. The references match the caliber of the work, which in my opinion is worthy of publishing in its current state.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your work on the manuscript and for the positive assessment of the study.
In response to Reviewer 1's comments, we had to make several changes to the manuscript. Additionally, the English language has been reviewed with the MDPI Author Services for language correction. I am attaching the updated version of the manuscript.
In the attached file, we have highlighted the most important changes in yellow.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe Manuscript is significantly improved over the original submission. I don't have any further comments and Manuscript can be accepted.
