Cognitive load during speech perception in noise: The influence of age, hearing loss, and cognition on the pupil response

Ear and Hearing

Volumn 32, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 498-510

  Zekveld, Adriana A ^a   Kramer, Sophia E ^a   Festen, Joost M ^a  

^a VU UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADAPTIVE BEHAVIOR; AGE; AGED; AGING; ARTICLE; AUDITORY STIMULATION; AUDITORY THRESHOLD; COGNITION; FEMALE; HUMAN; LINGUISTICS; MALE; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; NOISE; PATHOPHYSIOLOGY; PHYSIOLOGY; PRESBYACUSIS; PUPIL REFLEX; SPEECH INTELLIGIBILITY; SPEECH PERCEPTION;

ACOUSTIC STIMULATION; ADAPTATION, PSYCHOLOGICAL; AGE FACTORS; AGED; AGING; AUDITORY THRESHOLD; COGNITION; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NOISE; PRESBYCUSIS; REFLEX, PUPILLARY; SPEECH INTELLIGIBILITY; SPEECH PERCEPTION; VOCABULARY;

EID: 79959845719     PISSN: 01960202     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/AUD.0b013e31820512bb     Document Type: Review

References (86)

1. Akeroyd, M. A. (2008). 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, 47 (suppl 2), S125-S143.
2. Ahern, S., & Beatty, J. (1979). Pupillary responses during information processing vary with scholastic aptitude test scores. Science, 205, 1289-1292. (Pubitemid 10239860)
3. Ahern, S., & Beatty, J. (1981). Physiological Evidence that Demand for Processing Capacity Varies with Intelligence. In M. P. Friedman, J. P. Das, N. O'Connor (Eds). Intelligence and Learning (pp. 121-128). New York, NY: Plenum.
4. ANSI (1997). ANSI S3. 5-1997, American National Standard Methods for the Calculation of the Speech Intelligibility Index. New York, NY: American National Standards Institute.
5. Aston-Jones, G., & Cohen, J. D. (2005). An integrative theory of locus coeruleus-norepinephrine function: Adaptive gain and optimal performance. Annu Rev Neurosci, 28, 403-450. (Pubitemid 41098911)
6. Beatty, J. (1982). Task-evoked pupillary responses, processing load, and the structure of processing resources. Psychol Bull, 91, 276-292.
7. Beatty, J., & Lucero-Wagoner (2000). The Pupillary System. In J. T. Cacioppo, L. G., Tassinary, G. G., Berntson (Eds). Handbook of Psychophysiology (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
8. Bosman, A. J., & Smoorenburg, G. F. (1995). Intelligibility of Dutch CVC syllables and sentences for listeners with normal hearing and with three types of hearing impairment. Audiology, 34, 260-284. (Pubitemid 26039006)
9. Carver, R. P. (1971). Pupil dilation and its relationship to information processing during reading and listening. J Appl Psychol, 55, 126-134.
10. Daneman, M., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). Individual differences in integrating information between and within sentences. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn, 9, 561-584.
11. Edwards, B. (2007). The future of hearing aid technology. Trends Amplif, 11, 31-46.
12. Gatehouse, S., & Gordon, J. (1990). Response times to speech stimuli as measures of benefit from amplification. Br J Audiol, 24, 63-68. (Pubitemid 20194008)
13. George, E. L. J., Zekveld, A. A., Kramer, S. E., et al. (2007). Auditory and nonauditory factors affecting speech reception in noise by older listeners. J Acoust Am Soc, 121, 2362-2375. (Pubitemid 46553051)
14. Gilzenrat, M. S., Nieuwenhuis, S., Jepma, M., et al. (2010). Pupil diameter tracks changes in control state predicted by the adaptive gain theory of locus coerulus function. Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci, 10, 252-269.
15. Granholm, E., Asarnow, R. F., Sarkin, A. J., et al. (1996). Pupillary responses index cognitive resource limitations. Psychophysiology, 33, 457-461. (Pubitemid 26230732)
16. Granholm, E., Morris, S., Asarnow, R. F., et al. (2000). Accelerated age-related decline in processing resources in schizophrenia: Evidence from pupillary responses recorded during the span of apprehension task. J Int Neuropsychol Soc, 6, 30-43. (Pubitemid 30099190)
17. Henry, J. D., MacLeod, M. S., Phillips, L. H., et al. (2004). A meta-analytic review of prospective memory and aging. Psychol Aging, 19, 27-39. (Pubitemid 38338263)
18. 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. (Pubitemid 351175761)
19. Hyönä, J., Tommola, J., Alaja, A.-M. (1995). Pupil dilation as a measure of processing load in simultaneous interpretation and other language tasks. Q J Exp Psychol, 48 A, 598-612.
20. International Organization for Standardization. (1991). Acoustics: Standard Reference Zero for the Calibration of Pure-Tone Air Conduction Audiometers, ISO 389. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization.
21. Janisse, M. P. (1977). Pupillometry. The Psychology of the Pupillary Response. Washington, DC: Hemisphere Publishing Corporation.
22. Johnson, D. A. (1971). Pupillary responses during a short-term memory task: Cognitive processing, arousal, or both? J Exp Psychol, 90, 311-318.
23. Jolles, J., Houx, P. J., van Boxtel, M. P. J., et al. (1995). Maastricht Aging Study: Determinants of Cognitive Aging. Maastricht, The Netherlands: Neuropsych Publishers.
24. Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1993). The intensity dimension of thought: Pupillometric indices of sentence comprehension. Can J Exp Psychol, 47, 310-339.
25. Kane, M. J., Bleckley, M. K., Conway, A. R., et al. (2001). A controlledattention view of working-memory capacity. J Exp Psychol Gen, 130, 169-183.
26. Kane, M. J., & Engle, R. W. (2000). Working memory capacity, proactive interference, and divided attention: Limits on long-term memory retrieval. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn, 26, 336-358.
27. Karatekin, C. (2004). Development of attentional allocation in the dual task paradigm. Int J Psychophysiol, 52, 7-21. (Pubitemid 38328520)
28. Kim, M., Bversdorf, D. Q., Heilman, K. M. (2000). Arousal response with aging: Pupillographic study. J Int Neuropsychol Soc, 6, 348-350. (Pubitemid 30303646)
29. Kramer, S. E. (2008). Hearing impairment, work, and vocational enablement. Int J Audiol, 47, S124-S130.
30. Kramer, S. E., Kapteyn, T. S., Festen, J. M., et al. (1997). Assessing aspect of hearing handicap by means of pupil dilation. Audiology, 36, 155-164. (Pubitemid 27254859)
31. Kramer, S. E., Kapteyn, T., Houtgast, T. (2006). Occupational performance: Comparing normally-hearing and hearing-impaired employees using the Amsterdam Checklist for Hearing and Work. Int J Audiol, 45, 503-512. (Pubitemid 44483981)
32. Kramer, S. E., Zekveld, A. A., Houtgast, T. (2009). Measuring cognitive factors in speech comprehension: The value of using the text reception threshold test as a visual equivalent of the SRT test. Scand J Psychol, 50, 507-515.
33. Krüger, F. (2000) Coding of Temporal Relations in Semantic Memory: Cognitive Load and Task-Evoked Pupillary Response. Berlin: Waxmann.
34. Levitt, H. (1971). Transformed up-down methods in psychoacoustics. J Acoust Soc Am, 49, 467-477.
35. Lunner, T., Rudner, M., Rönnberg, J. (2009). Cognition and hearing aids. Scand J Audiol, 50, 395-403.
36. Luteijn, F., & Barelds, D. P. H. (2004). Groningen Intelligence Test 2 (GIT-2): Manual. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Harcourt Assessment BV.
37. Lyxell, B., & Rönnberg, J. (1989). Information-processing skill and speech-reading. Br J Audiol, 23, 339-347. (Pubitemid 20026628)
38. Martin, B. A., Tremblay, K. L., Korczal, P. (2008). Speech evoked potentials: From the laboratory to the clinic. Ear Hear, 29, 285-313. (Pubitemid 351681498)
39. McCoy, S. L., Tun, P. A., Cox, L. C., et al. (2005). Hearing loss and perceptual effort: Downstream effects on older adults' memory for speech. Q J Exp Psychol, 58, 22-33. (Pubitemid 40166893)
40. Morris, S. K., Granholm, E., Sarkin, A. J., et al. (1997). Effects of schizophrenia and aging on pupillographic measures of working memory. Schizophr Res, 27, 119-128. (Pubitemid 27512849)
41. Nachtegaal, J., Kuik, D. J., Anema, J. R., et al. (2009). Hearing status, need for recovery after work, and psychosocial work characteristics: Results from an Internet based National Survey on Hearing. Int J Audiol, 48, 684-691.
42. Neubauer, A. C., & Fink, A. (2009). Intelligence and neural efficiency. Neurosci Biobehav Rev, 33, 1004-1023.
43. Oates, P. A., Kurtzberg, D., Stapells, D. R. (2002). Effects of sensorineural hearing loss on cortical event-related potential and behavioral measures of speech-sound processing. Ear Hear, 23, 399-415. (Pubitemid 35244757)
44. Peavler, W. S. (1974). Pupil size, information overload, and performance differences. Psychophysiology, 11, 559-566.
45. Pichora-Fuller, M. K. (2003). Processing speed and timing in aging adults: Psychoacoustics, speech perception, and comprehension. Int J Audiol, 42, S59-S67. (Pubitemid 41626011)
46. Pichora-Fuller, M. K. (2006). Perceptual effort and apparent cognitive decline: Implications for audiological rehabilitation. Semin Hear, 27, 284-293. (Pubitemid 44899798)
47. Pichora-Fuller, M. K. (2007). Audition and Cognition: What Audiologists Need to Know About Listening. In C. Palmer & R. Seewald (Eds). Hearing Care for Adults (pp. 71-85). Stäfa, Switzerland: Phonak.
48. 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.
49. Piquado, T., Isaacowitz, D., Wingfield, A. (2010). Pupillometry as a measure of cognitive effort in younger and older adults. Psychophysiology, 47, 560-569.
50. Plomp, R. (1986). A signal-to-noise ratio model for the speech-reception threshold of the hearing impaired. J Speech Hear Res, 29, 146-154. (Pubitemid 16068576)
51. Plomp, R., & Mimpen, A. M. (1979). Improving the reliability of testing the speech reception threshold for sentences. Audiology, 18, 43-52. (Pubitemid 9111887)
52. Poock, G. K. (1973). Information processing versus pupil diameter. Percept Mot Skills, 37, 1000-1002.
53. Plomp, R. (1978). Auditory handicap of hearing impairment and the limited benefit of hearing aids. J Acoust Soc Am, 63, 533-549. (Pubitemid 8327751)
54. Prat, C. S., Keller, T. A., Just, M. A. (2007). Individual differences in sentence comprehension: A functional magnetic resonance imaging investigation of syntactic and lexical processing demands. J Cogn Neurosci, 19, 1950-1963. (Pubitemid 350220507)
55. Rönnberg, J. (2003). Cognition in the hearing impaired and deaf as a bridge between signal and dialogue: A framework and a model. Int J Audiol, 42, S68-S76. (Pubitemid 41626012)
56. Rönnberg, J., Rudner, M., Foo, C., et al. (2008). Cognition counts: A working memory system for ease of language understanding. Int J Audiol, 47, S99-S105.
57. Rönnberg, J., Rudner, M., Lunner, T., et al. (2010). When cognition kicks in: Working memory and speech understanding in noise. Noise Health, 12, 263-269.
58. Rosen, V. M., & Engle, R. W. (1998). Working memory capacity and suppression. J Mem Lang, 39, 418-436. (Pubitemid 128343554)
59. Salthouse, T. A. (1991). Mediation of adult age differences in cognition by reductions in working memory and speed of processing. Psychol Sci, 2, 179-183.
60. Sarampalis, A., Kalluri, S., Edwards, B., et al. (2009). Objective measures of listening effort: Effects of background noise and noise reduction. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 52, 1230-1240.
61. Schluroff, M. (1983). In the Eye of the Beholder: Cognitive Effort During Sentence Processing. In R. Bäuerle, C. Schwarze, A. von Stechow (Eds). Meaning, Use, and Interpretation of Language (pp. 302-323). New York, NY: de Gruyter.
62. Shiffrin, R. M., & Schneider, W. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing: II. Perceptual learning, automatic attending and a general theory. Psychol Rev, 84, 127-190.
63. Shinn-Cunningham, B. G., & Best, V. (2008). Selective attention in normal and impaired hearing. Trends Amplif, 12, 283-299.
64. Siegle, G. J., Granholm, E., Ingram, R. E., et al. (2001). Pupillary and reaction time measures of sustained processing of negative information in depression. Biol Psychiatry, 49, 624-636. (Pubitemid 32289357)
65. Siegle, G. J., Steinhauer, S. R., Stenger, V. A., et al. (2003). Use of concurrent pupil dilation assessment to inform interpretation and analysis of fMRI data. Neuroimaging, 20, 114-124. (Pubitemid 37188503)
66. Smits, C., & Houtgast, T. (2006). Measurements and calculations on the simple up-down adaptive procedure for speech-in-noise tests. J Acoust Soc Am, 120, 1608-1621. (Pubitemid 44370681)
67. Snijders, J. T., Luteijn, F., Verhage, F. (1983). Groninger Intelligentie Test (GIT). English: Groningen Intelligence Test. Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets Test Publishers.
68. Stanners, R. F., Headley, D. B., Clark, W. R. (1972). The pupillary response to sentences: Influences of listening set and deep structure. J Verb Learning Verb Behav, 11, 257-263.
69. Stenfelt, S., & Rönnberg, J. (2009). The Signal-Cognition interface: Interactions between degraded auditory signals and cognitive processes. Scand J Psychol, 50, 385-393.
70. Stevens, J. (1996). Applied Multivariate Statistics for the Social Sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
71. van der Elst, W., van Boxtel, M. P., van Breukelen, G. J., et al. (2006). The letter digit substitution test: Normative data for 1, 858 participants aged 24-81 from the Maastricht Aging Study (MAAS): Influence of age, education, and sex. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol, 28, 998-1009. (Pubitemid 44034738)
72. van der Meer, E., Beyer, R., Horn, J., et al. (2010). Resource allocation and fluid intelligence: Insights from pupillometry. Psychophysiology, 47, 158-169.
73. van Gerven, P. W.., Paas, F., Van Merriënboer, J. J., et al. (2004). Memory load and the cognitive pupil response in aging. Psychophysiology, 41, 167-174. (Pubitemid 38524089)
74. Verney, S. P., Granholm, E., Marshall, S. P. (2004). Pupillary responses on the visual backward masking task reflect general cognitive ability. Int J Psychophysiol, 52, 23-26.
75. Versfeld, N. J., Daalder, L., Festen, J. M., et al. (2000). Method for the selection of sentence materials for efficient measurement of the speech reception threshold. J Acoust Soc Am, 107, 1671-1684. (Pubitemid 30141708)
76. Wechsler, D. (1981). Manual for the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Revised. New York, NY: Psychological Corporation.
77. Wickens, C. D. (1991). Processing Resources and Attention. In D. L. Damos (Ed). Multiple-Task Performance (pp. 3-34). London: Taylor & Francis.
78. Wingfield, A., Aberdeen, J. S., Stine, E. A. L. (1991). Word onset gating and linguistic context in spoken word recognition by young and elderly adults. J Gerontol, 46, P127-P129.
79. Wingfield, A., & Grossman, M. (2006). Language and the aging brain: Patterns of neural compensation revealed by functional brain imaging. J Neurophysiol, 96, 2830-2839. (Pubitemid 44837830)
80. Wingfield, A., Poon, L. W., Lombardi, L., et al. (1985). Speed of processing in normal aging: Effects of speech rate, linguistic structure, and processing time. J Gerontol, 40, 579-585. (Pubitemid 15019076)
81. Wong, P. C. M., Jin, J. X., Gunasekera, G. M., et al. (2009). Aging and cortical mechanisms of speech perception in noise. Neuropsychologia, 47, 693-703.
82. Wright, P., & Kahneman, D. (1971). Evidence for alternative strategies of sentence retention. Q J Exp Psychol, 23, 197-213.
83. Zekveld, A. A., George, E. L. J., Kramer, S. E., et al. (2007). The development of the text reception threshold test: A visual analogue of the speech reception threshold test. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 50, 576-584. (Pubitemid 350058584)
84. Zekveld, A. A., Heslenfeld, D. J., Festen, J. M., et al. (2006). Top-down and bottom-up processes in speech comprehension. Neuroimage, 32, 1826-1836. (Pubitemid 44332271)
85. Zekveld, A. A., Kramer, S. E., Houtgast, T. (2009). Cognitive factors in speech perception (pp. 1540-1543). Proceedings NAG DAGA 2009/International Conference on Acoustics, March 23-26, 2009, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
86. Zekveld, A. A., Kramer, S. E., Festen, J. M. (2010). Pupil response as an indication of effortful listening: The influence of sentence intelligibility. Ear Hear, 31, 480-490.