Are individual differences in speech reception related to individual differences in cognitive ability? A survey of twenty experimental studies with normal and hearing-impaired adults

International Journal of Audiology

Volumn 47, Issue SUPPL. 2, 2008, Pages

  Akeroyd, Michael A ^a  

^a MRC INSTITUTE OF HEARING RESEARCH   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Behavioural measures; Hearing aids; Psychoacoustics hearing science; Spatial hearing; Speech perception

Indexed keywords

COGNITION; CONFERENCE PAPER; CORRELATION ANALYSIS; EXPERIMENTAL STUDY; FACTORIAL ANALYSIS; HEARING; HEARING AID; HEARING IMPAIRMENT; HEARING LOSS; HUMAN; INTELLIGENCE QUOTIENT; INTELLIGENCE TEST; NOISE; PREDICTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PSYCHOLOGIC TEST; SPEECH AUDIOMETRY; SPEECH DISCRIMINATION; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; WORKING MEMORY;

ADULT; AGED; COGNITION; HEARING AIDS; HEARING DISORDERS; HEARING IMPAIRED PERSONS; HUMANS; MEMORY; MIDDLE AGED; PERCEPTUAL MASKING; PSYCHOACOUSTICS; READING; REHABILITATION OF HEARING IMPAIRED; SPEECH PERCEPTION; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 56549098668     PISSN: 14992027     EISSN: 17088186     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/14992020802301142     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (105)

1. Baddeley A. 2007. Working Memory, Thought, and Action. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
2. Bernstein L.E. & Eberhardt S.P. 1986a. Johns Hopkins Lipreading Corpus I-II: Disc 1. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins.
3. Bernstein L.E. & Eberhardt S.P. 1986b. Johns Hopkins Lipreading Corpus III-IV: Disc 2. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins.
4. Bilger R.C., Nuetzel J.M., Rabinowitz W.M. & Rzeczkowski C. 1984. Standardization of a test of speech perception in noise. J Speech Hear Res, 27, 32-48.
5. Bolia R.S., Nelson W.T., Erickson M.A. & Simpson B.D. 2000. A speech corpus for multitalker communications research. J Acoust Soc Am, 107, 1065-1066.
6. Boothroyd A. & Nittrouer S. 1988. Mathematical treatment of context effects in phoneme and word recognition. J Acoust Soc Am, 84, 101-114.
7. Broadbent D.E. 1958. Perception and Communication. London: Pergamon Press.
8. Bronkhorst A.W., Brand T. & Wagener K. 2002. Evaluation of context effects in sentence recognition. J Acoust Soc Am, 111, 2874-2886.
9. Carpenter P.A. & Just M.A. 1975. Sentence comprehension: A psycholinguistic processing model of verification. Psych Rev, 82, 45-73.
10. Carroll J.B. 1993. Human Cognitive Abilities: A Survey of Factor-analytic Studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
11. Clark L.E. & Knowles J.B. 1973. Age differences in dichotic listening performance. J Gerontol, 28, 173-178.
12. Committee for Hearing, Bioacoustics, & Biomechanics (CHABA). 1988. Speech understanding and aging. J Acoust Soc Am, 83, 859-895.
13. Cox R.M., Alexander G.C., Gilmore C.G. & Pusakulich K.M. 1988. Use of the connected speech test (CST) with hearing-impaired listeners. Ear Hear, 9, 198-207.
14. Cudeck R. & MacCullum R.C. (eds.) 2007. Factor Analysis at 100: Historical Developments and Future Directions. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
15. Daneman M. & Carpenter P.A. 1980. Individual differences in working memory and reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour, 19, 450-466.
16. Daneman M. & Merikel P.M. 1996. Working memory and language comprehension: A meta-analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 3, 422-433.
17. Davis H. & Silverman S.R. 1970. Hearing and Deafness. New York: Hold, Rinehart, and Winston.
18. Diveny P.L. & Haupt K.M. 1997a. Audiological correlates of speech understanding deficits in elderly listeners with mild-to-moderate hearing loss. I. Age and lateral asymmetry effects. Ear Hear, 18, 42-61.
19. Diveny P.L. & Haupt K.M. 1997b. Audiological correlates of speech understanding deficits in elderly listeners with mild-to-moderate hearing loss. II. Correlation analysis. Ear Hear, 18, 100-113.
20. Diveny P.L. & Haupt K.M. 1997c. Audiological correlates of speech understanding deficits in elderly listeners with mild-to-moderate hearing loss. III. Factor representation effects. Ear Hear, 18, 189-201.
21. Dreschler W.A., Verschuure H., Ludvigsen C. & Westerman S. 2001. ICRA noises: Artificial noise signals with speech-like spectral and temporal properties for hearing-instrument assessment. Audiology, 40, 148-157.
22. Dubno J.R., Ahlstrom J.B. & Horwitz A.R. 2000. Use of context by young and aged adults with normal hearing. J Acoust Soc Am, 107, 538-546.
23. Egan J.P. 1948. Articulation testing methods. Laryngoscope, 58, 955-991.
24. Fifer R., Jerger J., Berlin C., Tobey E. & Campbell J. 1984. Development of a dichotic speech sentence identification test for hearing-impaired adults. Ear Hear, 4, 300-305.
25. Foo C., Rudner M., Rönnberg J. & Lunner T. 2007. Recognition of speech in noise with new hearing instrument compression release settings requires explicit cognitive storage and processing capacity. J Am Acad Audiol, 18, 553-566.
26. Foster J.R. & Haggard M.P. 1987. The four alternative auditory feature test (FAAF): Linguistic and psychometric properties of the material with normative data in noise. Br J Audiol, 21, 165-174.
27. Frisina D.R. & Frisina R.D. 1997. Speech recognition in noise and presbycusis: Relations to possible neural mechanisms. Hear Res, 106, 95-104.
28. Gantz B.J., Woodworth G.G., Abbas P.J., Knutson J.F. & Tyler R.S. 1993. Multivariate predictors of audiological success with multichannel cochlear implants. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol, 102: 90-916.
29. Gatehouse S. Elberling C. & Naylor G. 1999. Aspects of auditory ecology and psychoacoustic function as determinants of benefits from and candidature for nonlinear processing in hearing aids. In: Auditory Models and Nonlinear Hearing Instruments: 18th Danavox Symposium, 221-233.
30. Gatehouse S., Naylor G. & Elberling C. 2003. Benefits from hearing aids in relation to the interaction between the user and the environment. Int J Audiol, 42, S77-S85.
31. Gatehouse S., Naylor G. & Elberling C. 2006a. Linear and nonlinear hearing aid fittings. 1. Patterns of benefit. Int J Audiol, 45, 130-152.
32. Gatehouse S., Naylor G. & Elberling C. 2006b. Linear and nonlinear hearing aid fittings. 2. Patterns of candidature. Int J Audiol, 45, 153-171.
33. George E.L.J., Zekveld A.A., Kramer S.E., Goverts S.T., Festen J.M. et al. 2007. Auditory and nonauditory factors affecting speech reception in noise by older listeners. J Acoust Soc Am, 121, 2362-2375.
34. Givens G.D., Arnold R. & Hume W.G. 1998. Auditory processing skills and hearing aid satisfaction in a sample of older adults. Percept Mot Skills, 98, 795-801.
35. Gordon-Salant S. & Fitzgibbons P.J. 1997. Selected cognitive factors and speech recognition performance among young and elderly listeners. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 40, 423-431.
36. Grant K.W. and Seitz P.F. 2000. The recognition of isolated words and words in sentences: Individual variability in the use of sentence context. J Acoust Soc Am, 107, 1000-1011.
37. Hagerman B. & Kinnefors C. 1995. Efficient adaptive methods for measurements of speech reception thresholds in quiet and noise. Scand Audiol, 24, 71-77.
38. Hällgren M., Larsby B. & Arlinger S. 2006. A Swedish version of the hearing in noise test (HINT) for measurement of speech recognition. Int J Audiol, 45, 227-237.
39. Hällgren M., Larsby B., Lyxell B. & Arlinger S. 2001a. Cognitive effects in dichotic speech testing in elderly persons. Ear Hear, 22, 120-129.
40. Hällgren M., Larsby B., Lyxell B. & Arlinger S. 2001b. Evaluation of a cognitive test battery in young and elderly normal-hearing and hearing-impaired persons. J Am Acad Audiol, 12, 357-370.
41. Hällgren M., Larsby B., Lyxell B. & Arlinger S. 2005. Speech understanding in quiet and noise, with and without hearing aids. Int J Audiol, 44, 574-583.
42. Hirsh I.J., Davis H., Silverman S.R., Reynolds E.G., Eldert E. et al. 1952. Development of materials for speech audiometry. J Sp Hear Dis, 17, 321-337.
43. House A.S., Williams C.E., Hecker M.H.L. & Kryter K. 1965. Articulation-testing methods: Consonantal differentiation with a closed-response set. J Acoust Soc Am, 37, 158-166.
44. Houtgast T. & Kramer S.E. 2007. On the inclusion of cognitive aspects within the European project HearCom. J Am Acad Audiol, 18, 632-633.
45. Humes L.E. 1996. Speech understanding in the elderly. J Am Acad Audiol, 7, 161-167.
46. Humes L.E. 2002. Factors underlying the speech-recognition performance of elderly hearing-aid wearers. J Acoust Soc Am, 112, 1112-1132.
47. Humes L.E. 2005. Do 'auditory processing' tests measure auditory processing in the elderly? Ear Hear, 26, 109-119.
48. Humes L.E. 2007. The contributions of audibility and cognitive factors to the benefit provided by amplified speech to older adults. J Am Acad Audiol, 18, 590-603.
49. Humes L.E. & Floyd S.S. 2005. Measures of working memory, sequence learning, and speech recognition in the elderly. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 48, 224-235.
50. Humes L.E., Burk M.H., Coughlin M.P., Busey T.A. & Strauser L.E. 2007. Auditory speech recognition and visual text recognition in younger and older adults: Similarities and differences between modalities and the effects of presentation rate. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 50, 283-303.
51. Humes L.E., Lee J.H. & Coughlin M.P. 2006. Auditory measures of selective and divided attention in young and older adults using single-talker competition. J Acoust Soc Am, 120, 2926-2937.
52. Humes L.E., Watson B.U., Christensen L.A., Cokely C.G., Halling D.C. et al. 1994. Factors associated with individual differences in clinical measures of speech recognition among the elderly. J Speech Hear Res, 37, 465-474.
53. Jerger J. & Chmiel R. 1997. Factor analytic structure of auditory impairment in elderly persons. J Am Acad Audiol, 7, 269-276.
54. Jerger J., Jerger S. & Pirozzolo F. 1991. Correlational analysis of speech audiometric scores, hearing loss, age, and cognitive abilities in the elderly. Ear Hear, 12, 103-109.
55. Jerger J., Jerger S., Oliver T. & Pirozzolo F. 1989a. Speech understanding in the elderly. Ear Hear, 10, 79-89.
56. Jerger J., Mahurin R. & Pirozzolo F. 1990. The separability of central auditory and cognitive deficits: Implications for the elderly. J Am Acad Audiol, 1,116-199.
57. Jerger J., Stach B., Pruitt J., Harper R. & Kirby H. 1989. Comments on 'Speech understanding and aging' [J Acoust Soc Am, 83, 859-895 (1988)]. J Acoust Soc Am, 85, 1352-1354.
58. Johnson D.M., Watson C.S. & Jensen J.K. 1987. Individual differences in auditory capabilities. I. J Acoust Soc Am, 81, 427-438.
59. Kalikow D., Stevens K. & Elliot L. 1977. Development of a test of speech intelligibility in noise using sentence materials with controlled word predictability. J Acoust Soc Am, 61, 1337-1351.
60. Kidd G.R., Watson C.S. & Gygi B. 2007. Individual differences in auditory abilities. J Acoust Soc Am, 122, 418-435.
61. Knutson J.F., Hinriches J.V., Tyler R.S., Gantz B.J., Schartz H.A. et al. 1991. Psychological predictors of audiological outcomes of multichannel cochlear implants: Preliminary findings. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol, 100, 817-822.
62. Knutson J.F., Schartz H.A., Gantz B.J., Tyler R.S., Hinriches J.V. et al. 1991. Psychological state following 18 months of cochlear implant use. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol, 100, 877-882.
63. Larsby B., Hällgren M., Lyxell B. & Arlinger S. 2005. Cognitive performance and perceived effort in speech processing tasks: Effects of different noise backgrounds in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired subjects. Int J Audiol, 44, 131-143.
64. Levitt H. & Resnick S.B. 1978. Speech reception by the hearing impaired: Methods of testing and development of materials. Scand Audiol, suppl 6, 107-129.
65. Lunner T. 2003. Cognitive function in relation to hearing aid use. Int J Audiol, 42, S49-S58.
66. Lunner T. & Sundewall-Thorén E. 2007. Interactions between cognition, compression, and listening conditions: Effects on speech-in-noise performance in a two-channel hearing aid. J. Am Acad Audiol, 18, 604-617.
67. Luteijn F. & van der Ploeg F.A.E. 1983. Handleiding Groninger Intelligentie Test. Lisse, the Netherlands: Swets and Zeitlinger B.V.
68. Lyxell B., Andersson U., Borg E. & Ohlsson I.S. 2003. Working memory capacity and phonological processing in deafened adults and individuals with a severe hearing impairment. Int J Audiol, 42, S86-S89.
69. Moray N. 1969a. Attention: Selective Processes in Vision and Hearing. London: Hutchison Educational.
70. Moray N. 1969b. Listening and Attention. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin Books.
71. Murphy D.R., Daneman M. & Schneider B.A. 2006. Why do older adults have difficulties following conversations? Psychol Aging, 21, 49-61.
72. Pashler H.E. 1998. The Psychology of Attention. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
73. Pichora-Fuller M.K. 2003. Cognitive aging and auditory information processing. Int J Audiol, 42, 2S26-2S32.
74. Pichora-Fuller M.K., Schneider B.A. & Daneman M. 1995. How young and old adults listen to and remember speech in noise. J Acoust Soc Am, 97, 593-608.
75. Pisoni D.B. & Cleary M. 2004. Learning, memory, and cognitive processes in deaf children following cochlear implantation. In: F.G. Zeng, A.N. Popper & R.R. Fay (eds.), Springer Handbook of Auditory Research, Vol. 20. Cochlear Implants: Auditory Prostheses and Electric Hearing. New York: Springer-Verlag.
76. Plomp R. & Mimpen A.M. 1979. Improving the reliability of testing the speech reception threshold for sentences. Audiology, 18, 43-52.
77. Rakerd B., Seitz P.F. & Whearty M. 1996. Assessing the cognitive demands of speech listening for people with hearing losses. Ear Hear, 17, 97-106.
78. Resnick S., Dubno J.R., Hoffnung S. & Levitt H. 1975. Phoneme errors on a nonsense syllable test. J Acoust Soc Am, 58, suppl 1-114.
79. Rönnberg J. 1990. Cognitive and communicative function: The effects of chronological age and 'handicap age'. Eur J Cog Psychol, 2, 253-273.
80. Rönnberg J. 2003. Cognition in the hearing impaired and deaf as a bridge between signal and dialogue: A framework and model. Int J Audiol, 42, S68-S76.
81. Rönnberg J., Andersson J., Andersson U., Johansson K., Lyxell B. et al. 1998. Cognition as a bridge between signal and dialogue: Communication in the hearing impaired and deaf. Scand Audiol, 27 (suppl 49), 101-108.
82. Rönnberg J., Rudner M., Foo C. & Lunner T. Cognition counts: A working memory system for ease of language understanding. Int J Audiol, this issue.
83. Rudner M., Foo C., Rönnberg J. & Lunner T. 2007. Phonological mismatch makes aided speech recognition in noise cognitively taxing. Ear Hear, 28, 879-892.
84. Rudner M., Foo C., Sundewall-Thorén E., Lunner T. & Rönnberg J. Phonological mismatch and explicit cognitive processing in a sample of 102 hearing-aid users. Int J Audiol, this issue.
85. Sommers M.S. 1997. Stimulus variability and spoken word recognition. II. The effects of age and hearing impairment. J Acoust Soc Am, 101, 2278-2288.
86. Spearman C. 1904. General intelligence objectively determined and measured. Am J Psychol, 15, 201-293.
87. Strouse A.L. & Hall J.W. 1995. Test-retest reliability of a dichotic digits test for assessing central auditory function in Alzheimer's disease. Audiology, 34, 85-90.
88. Styles E.A. 1997. The Psychology of Attention. Hove, UK: Psychology Press.
89. Surprenant A.M. & Watson C.S. 2001. Individual differences in the processing of speech and nonspeech sounds by normal-hearing listeners. J Acoust Soc Am, 110, 2085-2095.
90. Thompson B. 1984. Canonical Correlation Analysis. London: Sage Publications.
91. van Rooij J.C.G.M., Plomp R. & Orlebeke J.F. 1989. Auditive and cognitive factors in speech perception by elderly listeners. I. Development of test battery. J Acoust Soc Am, 86, 1294-1309.
92. van Rooij J.C.G.M. & Plomp R. 1990. Auditive and cognitive factors in speech perception by elderly listeners. II. Multivariate analyses. J Acoust Soc Am, 88, 2611-2624.
93. van Rooij J.C.G.M. & Plomp R. 1992. Auditive and cognitive factors in speech perception by elderly listeners. III. Additional data and final discussion. J Acoust Soc Am, 91, 1028-1033.
94. Vaughan N.E. & Letowski T. 1997. Effects of age, speech rate, and type of test on temporal auditory processing. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 40, 1192-1200.
95. Wagener K.C., Josvassen J.L. & Ardenkjaer R. 2003. Design, optimization, and evaluation of a Danish sentence test in noise. Int J Audiol, 42, 10-17.
96. Watson B.U. 1991. Some relationships between intelligence and auditory discrimination. J Speech Hear Res, 34, 621-627.
97. Watson C.S. 1987. Uncertainty, informational masking, and the capacity of immediate auditory memory. In: W.A. Yost & C.S. Watson (eds.), Auditory Processing of Complex Sounds. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
98. Watson C.S., Qiu W.W., Chamberlain M.M. & Li X. 1996. Auditory and visual speech perception: Confirmation of a modality-independent source of individual differences in speech recognition. J Acoust Soc Am, 100, 1153-1162.
99. Weschler D. 1981. The Weschler Adult Intelligence Scale-Revised. New York: The Psychological Corporation.
100. Weschler D. 1987. The Weschler Memory Scale-Revised. New York: The Psychological Corporation.
101. Weschler D. 1997. The Weschler Adult Intelligence Scale-third edition. San Antonio, Texas: The Psychological Corporation.
102. Wingfield A. 1996. Cognitive factors in auditory performance: Context, speed of processing, and constraints of memory. J Am Acad Audiol, 7, 175-182.
103. Zekveld A.A., Deijen J.B., Goverts S.T. & Kramer S.E. 2007a. The relationship between nonverbal cognitive functions and hearing loss J Speech Lang Hear Res, 50, 74-82.
104. Zekveld A.A., George E.L.J., Kramer S.E., Goverts S.T. & Houtgast T. 2007b. The development of the text reception threshold test: Avisual analogue of the speech reception threshold test. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 50, 576-584.
105. Zekveld A.A., Kramer S.E., Vlaming M.S.M.G. & Houtgast T. 2008. Audiovisual perception of speech in noise and masked written text. Ear Hear, 29, 99-111.