When cognition kicks in: Working memory and speech understanding in noise

Noise and Health

Volumn 12, Issue 49, 2010, Pages 263-269

  Rönnberg, Jerker ^a,b   Rudner, Mary ^a,b   Lunner, Thomas ^a,b,c   Zekveld, Adriana A ^a,b,d  

^a Linköping University   (Sweden)

^b LINKÖPING UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^c OTICON A S   (Denmark)

^d VU UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Competing noise; ease of language understanding; masking; speech understanding; working memory

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ATTENTION; HUMAN; NOISE; PERCEPTION; SHORT TERM MEMORY; SPEECH PERCEPTION;

ATTENTION; HUMANS; MEMORY, SHORT-TERM; NOISE; PERCEPTUAL MASKING; SPEECH PERCEPTION;

EID: 77957591265     PISSN: 14631741     EISSN: 19984030     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.4103/1463-1741.70505     Document Type: Article

References (53)

1. Arlinger S, Lunner T, Lyxell B, Pichora-Fuller MK. The emergence of cognitive hearing science. Scand J Psychol 2009;50:371-84.
2. Speech understanding and aging: Working Group on Speech Understanding and Aging: Committee on Hearing, Bioacoustics, and Biomechanics, Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, National Research Council. J Acoust Soc Am 1988;83:859-95.
3. Auer ET Jr. Spoken word recognition by eye. Scand J Psychol 2009;50:419-25.
4. Lidestam B. Visual discrimination of vowel duration. Scand J Psychol 2009;50:427-35.
5. Gallacher J. Hearing, cognitive impairment and aging: A critical review. Rev Clin Gerontol 2005;14:1-11.
6. Pichora-Fuller MK. Use of supportive context by younger and older adult listeners: Balancing bottom-up and top-down information processing Int J Audiol 2008:47: S72-82.
7. Campbell R, Rudner M, Rönnberg J. Editorial. Scand J Psychol 2009;50:367-9.
8. Rönnberg J, Rudner M, Foo C, Lunner T. Cognition counts: A working memory system for ease of language understanding (ELU). Int J Audiol 2008;47: S171-7.
9. Rönnberg J, Rudner M, Foo C. The cognitive neuroscience of signed language: Applications to a working memory system for sign and speech. In: Bäckman L, Nyberg L, editors. Memory, aging and the brain: A Festschrift in honour of Lars-Göran Nilsson. London: Psychology Press; 2010. p. 265-86.
10. Rönnberg J. Cognition in the hearing impaired and deaf as a bridge between signal and dialogue: A framework and a model. Int J Audiol 2003;42: S68-76.
11. Lunner T. Cognitive function in relation to hearing aid use. Int J Audiol 2003;42: S49-58.
12. Lunner T, Rudner M, Rönnberg J. Cognition and hearing aids. Scand J Psychol 2009;50:395-403.
13. Rudner M, Foo C, Rönnberg J, Lunner T. Cognition and aided speech recognition in noise: Specific role for cognitive factors following nineweek experience with adjusted compression settings in hearing aids. Scand J Psychol 2009;50:405-18.
14. Lyxell B, Rönnberg J. The effects of background noise and working memory capacity on speechreading performance. Scand Audiol 1993;22:67-70.
15. Daneman M, Carpenter PA. Individual differences in integrating information between and within sentences. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 1980;9:561-84.
16. Rönnberg J, Arlinger S, Lyxell B, Kinnefors C. Visual evoked potentials: Relation to adult speechreading and cognitive function. J Speech Lang Hear Res 1989;32:725-35.
17. George EL, Zekveld AA, Kramer SE, Goverts ST, Festen JM, Houtgast T. Auditory and nonauditory factors affecting speech reception in noise by older listeners. J Acoust Soc Am 2007;121:2362-75.
18. Zekveld AA, George EL, Kramer SE, Goverts ST, Houtgast T. The development of the text reception threshold test: A visual analogue of the speech reception threshold test. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2007;50:576-84.
19. Plomp R, Mimpen AM. Improving the reliability of testing the speech reception threshold for sentences. Audiology 1979;18:43-52.
20. Duquesnoy AJ. Effect of a single interfering noise or speech source upon the binaural sentence intelligibility of aged persons. J Acoust Soc Am 1983;74:739-43.
21. Festen JM, Plomp R. Effects of fluctuating noise and interfering speech on the speech-reception threshold for impaired and normal hearing. J Acoust Soc Am 1990;88:1725-36.
22. George EL, Festen JM, Houtgast T. Factors affecting masking release for speech in modulated noise for normal-hearing and hearing impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am 2006;120:2295-311.
23. Lorenzi C, Gilbert G, Carn H, Garnier S, Moore BC. Speech perception problems of the hearing impaired reflect inability to use temporal fine structure. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2006;103:18866-9.
24. Hopkins K, Moore BC, Stone MA. Effects of moderate cochlear hearing loss on the ability to benefit from temporal fine structure information in speech. J Acoust Soc Am 2008;123:1140-53.
25. Hopkins K, Moore BC. The contribution of temporal fine structure to the intelligibility of speech in steady state and modulated noise. J Acoust Soc Am 2009;125:442-6.
26. Bernstein JG, Grant KW. Auditory and auditory-visual intelligibility of speech in fluctuating maskers for normal-hearing and hearing impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am 2009;125:3358-72.
27. Kramer SE, Kapteyn TS, Festen JM, Tobi H. The relationship between self-reported hearing disability and measures of auditory disability. Int J Audiol 1996;35:277-87. (Pubitemid 26377635)
28. Lunner T, Sundewall-Thorén E. Interactions between cognition, compression, and listening conditions: Effects on speech-in-noise performance in a two-channel hearing aid. J Am Acad Audiol 2007;18:539-52.
29. Dillon H. Hearing Aids. Turramurra. Australia: Boomerang Press; 2001.
30. Moore BC, Peters RW, Stone MA. Benefits of linear amplification and multichannel compression for speech comprehension in backgrounds with spectral and temporal dips. J Acoust Soc Am 1999;105:400-11.
31. Gatehouse S, Naylor G, Elberling C. Benefits from hearing aids in relation to the interaction between the user and the environment. Int J Audiol 2003;42: S77-85.
32. Akeroyd MA. 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. Int J Audiol 2008;47: S53-71.
33. Cox R, Xu J. Short and long compression release times: Speech understanding, real world preferences, and association with cognitive ability. J Am Acad Audiol 2010;21:121-38.
34. Hagerman B. Speech recognition in slightly and fully modulated noise for hearing impaired subjects. Int J Audiol 2002;41:321-9.
35. Foo C, Rudner M, Rönnberg J, Lunner T. Recognition of speech in noise with new hearing instrument compression release settings requires explicit cognitive storage and processing capacity. J Am Acad Audiol 2007;18:553-66.
36. 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 2008;47: S91-8.
37. Stenfelt S, Rönnberg J. The signal-cognition interface: Interactions between degraded auditory signals and cognitive processes. Scand J Psychol 2009;50:383-93.
38. Hannon B, Daneman M. A new tool for measuring and understanding individual differences in the component processes of reading comprehension. J Educ Psychol 2001;93:103-8.
39. Naylor G, Johannesson RB. Long-term signal-to-Noise ratio at the input and output of amplitude-compression systems. J Am Acad Audiol 2009;20:161-71.
40. Mattys SL, Brooks J, Cooke M. Recognizing speech under a processing load: Dissociating energetic from informational factors. Cogn Psychol 2009;59:203-43.
41. Patterson RD, Johnsrude IS. Functional imaging of the auditory processing applied to speech sounds. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 2008;363:1023-35.
42. Whalen DH, Benson RR, Richardson M, Swainson B, Clark VP, Lai S, et al. Differentiation of speech and nonspeech processing within primary auditory cortex. J Acoust Soc Am 2006;119:575-81.
43. Hughes RW, Tremblay S, Jones DM. Disruption by speech of serial short-term memory: The role of changing-state vowels. Psychon Bull Rev 2005;12:886-90.
44. Jones DM, Macken WJ. Irrelevant tones produce an irrelevant speech effect: Implications for phonological coding in working memory. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 1993;19:369-81.
45. Marsh JE, Hughes RW, Jones DW. Interference by process, not content, determines semantic auditory distraction. Cognition 2009;110:23-38.
46. Baddeley AD, Larsen JD. The phonological loop unmasked? A comment on the evidence for a "perceptual-gestural" alternative. Q J Exp Psychol 2007;60:497-504.
47. Baddeley AD. The episodic buffer: A new component of working memory? Trends Cogn Sci 2000;4:417-23.
48. Hygge S, Rönnberg J, Larsby B, Arlinger S. Normal-hearing and hearing-impaired subjects' ability to just follow conversation in competing speech, reversed speech, and noise backgrounds. J Speech Hear Res 1992;35:208-15.
49. Pichora-Fuller MK. Processing speed and timing in aging adults: Psychoacoustics, speech perception, and comprehension. Int J Audiol 2003;42: S59-67.
50. Binns C, Culling JF. The role of fundamental frequency contours in the perception of speech against interfering speech. J Acoust Soc Am 2007;122:1765-76.
51. Rhebergen K, Versfeld NJ, Dreschler WA. Release from informational masking by time reversal of native and non-native interfering speech. J Acoust Soc Am 2005;118:1274-7.
52. Bronkhorst AW. The cocktail party phenomenom: A review of research on speech intelligibility in multiple-talker conditions. Acust Acta Acust 2000;86:117-28.
53. Lyxell B, Borg E, Ohlsson IS. Cognitive skills and perceived effort in active and passive listening in a naturalistic sound environment. Publications from the Sound Environment Centre at Lund University. Report no. 8 (pp. 91-104).