The Influence of Semantically Related and Unrelated Text Cues on the Intelligibility of Sentences in Noise

Ear and Hearing

Volumn 32, Issue 6, 2011, Pages e16-e25

  Zekveld, Adriana A ^a   Rudner, Mary ^a   Johnsrude, Ingrid S ^a   Festen, Joost M ^b   van Beek, Johannes H M ^b   Rönnberg, Jerker ^b  

^a LINKÖPING UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^b Linköping University   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ARTICLE; ASSOCIATION; AUDITORY THRESHOLD; CONTINGENT NEGATIVE VARIATION; FEMALE; HEARING; HUMAN; LINGUISTICS; MALE; MEMORY; NOISE; PHYSIOLOGY; PURE TONE AUDIOMETRY; SEMANTICS; SPEECH AUDIOMETRY; SPEECH PERCEPTION;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AUDIOMETRY, PURE-TONE; AUDITORY THRESHOLD; CONTINGENT NEGATIVE VARIATION; CUES; FEMALE; HEARING; HUMANS; MALE; MEMORY; NOISE; PSYCHOLINGUISTICS; SEMANTICS; SPEECH DISCRIMINATION TESTS; SPEECH PERCEPTION; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 80255134509     PISSN: 01960202     EISSN: 15384667     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/AUD.0b013e318228036a     Document Type: Article

References (71)

1. Akeroyd, M. A. (2008). Are individual differences in speech reception threshold 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), S53-S71.
2. Andersson, U., Lyxell, B., Rönnberg, J., et al. (2001). Cognitive correlates of visual speech understanding in hearing-impaired individuals. J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ, 6, 103-116.
3. Aydelott, J., & Bates, E. (2004). Effects of acoustic distortion and semantic context on lexical access. Lang Cogn Process, 19, 29-56.
4. Baayen, R. H., Piepenbrock, R., Gulikers, L. (1995). The CELEX Lexical Database (Version Release 2) [CD-ROM]. Philadelphia, PA: Linguistic Data Consortium, University of Pennsylvania.
5. Bäckman, L., Mäntylä, T., Erngrund, K. (1984). Optimal recall in early and late adulthood. Scand J Psychol, 25, 306-314.
6. Bailey, I. L., & Lovie, J. E. (1980). The design and use of a near-vision chart. Am J Optom Physiol Opt, 57, 378-387.
7. Becker, C. A., & Killion, T. H. (1977). Interaction of visual and cognitive effects in word recognition. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform, 3, 389-401.
8. Bilger, R. C., Neutzel, J. M., Rabinowitz, W. M., et al. (1984). Standardization of a test of speech perception in noise. J Speech Hear Res, 27, 32-48.
9. Boothroyd, A., & Nittrouer, S. (1988). Mathematical treatment of context effects in phoneme and word recognition. J Acoust Soc Am, 84, 101-114.
10. Bronkhorst, A. W., Bosman, A. J., Smoorenburg, G. F. (1993). A model for context effects in speech recognition. J Acoust Soc Am, 93, 499-509.
11. Cardillo, E. R., Aydelott, J., Matthews, P. M., et al. (2004). Left inferior prefrontal cortex activity reflects inhibitory rather than facilitatory priming. J Cogn Neurosci, 16, 1552-1561.
12. Conway, A. R. A., Cowan, N., Bunting, M. F. (2001). The cocktail party phenomenon revisited: The importance of working memory capacity. Psych Bull Rev, 8, 331-335.
13. Daneman, M., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). Individual differences in working memory and reading. J Verbal Learn Verbal Behav, 19, 450-466.
14. Daneman, M., & Carpenter, P. A. (1983). Individual differences in integrating information between and within sentences. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn, 9, 561-583.
15. Drager, K. D. R., & Reichle, J. E. (2001). Effects of discourse context on the intelligibility of synthesized speech for young adult and older adult listeners: Applications for AAC. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 44, 1052-1057.
16. 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.
17. Elliot, L. L. (1995). Verbal auditory closure and the Speech Perception in Noise (SPIN) test. J Speech Hear Res, 38, 1363-1376.
18. Freyman, R. L., Balakrishnan, U., Helfer, K. S. (2004). Effect of number of masking talkers and auditory priming on informational masking in speech recognition. J Acoust Soc Am, 115, 2246-2256.
19. Foo, C., Rudner, M., Rönnberg, J., et al. (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.
20. 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 Soc Am, 121, 2362-2375.
21. Grant, K. W., & 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, 1000-1009.
22. Hagoort, P., & van Berkum, J. (2007). Beyond the sentence given. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B, 362, 801-811.
23. Helfer, K. S., & Freyman, R. L. (2008). Aging and speech-on-speech masking, Ear Hear, 29, 87-98.
24. Holcomb, P. J. (1993). Semantic priming and stimulus degradation: Implications for the role of the N400 in language processing. Psychophysiology, 30, 47-61.
25. Kalikow, D. N., Stevens, K. N., Elliott, L. L. (1977). Development of a test of speech intelligibility in noise using sentence materials with controlled word predictability. J Acoust Soc Am, 61, 1337-1349.
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. 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.
28. Lansing, C. R., & Helgeson, C. L. (1995). Priming the visual recognition of spoken words. J Speech Hear Res, 38, 1377-1386.
29. Levitt, H. (1971). Transformed up-down methods in psychoacoustics. J Acoust Soc Am, 49, 467-477.
30. Lunner, T. (2003). Cognitive function in relation to hearing aid use. Int J Audiol, 42, S49-S58.
31. MacDonald, H., Davis, M. H., Pichora-Fuller, K., et al. (2008). Contextual influences: Perception of sentences in noise is facilitated similarly in young and older listeners by meaningful semantic context; neural correlates explored via functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). J Acoust Soc Am, 123, 3887.
32. Mäntylä, T. (1986a). Optimizing cue effectiveness: Recall of 500 and 600 incidentially learned word. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn, 12, 66-71.
33. Mäntylä, T. (1986b). How do you cue: Self-generated retrieval cues and successful recall. Dissertation, University of Umeå, Umeå, Sweden.
34. Mäntylä, T., & Nilsson, L.-G. (1983). Are my cues better than your cues? Uniqueness and reconstruction as prerequisites for optimal recall of verbal materials. Scand J Psychol, 24, 303-312.
35. Mäntylä, T., & Nilsson, L.-G. (1988). Cue distinctiveness and forgetting: Effectiveness of self-generated retrieval cues in delayed recall. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn, 14, 502-509.
36. 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 A, 58, 22-33.
37. Meyer, D. E., Schvaneveldt, R. W., Ruddy, M. G. (1975). Loci of Contextual Effects on Word Recognition. In P. M. A. Rabbitt & S. Dornic (Eds). Attention and Performance (Vol. 5). New York, NY: Academic Press.
38. Miller, G. A., Heise, G. A., Lichten, W. (1951). The intelligibility of speech as a function of the context of the test materials. J Exp Psychol, 41, 329-335.
39. Miller, G. A., & Isard, S. (1963). Some perceptual consequences of linguistic rules. J Verb Learn Verb Behav, 2, 217-228.
40. 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.
41. Nakano, H., Saron, C., Swaab, T. Y. (2010). Speech and span: Working memory capacity impacts the use of animacy but not of world knowledge during spoken sentence comprehension. J Cogn Neurosci, 22, 2886-2898.
42. Neely, J. (1991). Semantic Priming Effects in Visual Word Recognition: A Selective Review of Current Findings and Theories. In D. Besner & G. Humphreys (Eds). Basic Processes in Reading: Visual Word Recognition (pp. 264-336). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
43. Obleser, J., & Kotz, S. A. (2010). Expectancy constraints in degraded speech modulate the language comprehension network. Cereb Cortex, 20, 633-640.
44. Obleser, J., Wise, R. J., Alex Dresner, M., et al. (2007). Functional integration across brain regions improves speech perception under adverse listening conditions. J Neurosci, 27, 2283-2289.
45. 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.
46. Plomp, R. (2002). The Intelligent Ear. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
47. Plomp, R., & Mimpen, A. M. (1979). Improving the reliability of testing the speech reception threshold for sentences. Audiology, 18, 43-52.
48. 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.
49. Rönnberg, J., Arlinger, S., Lyxell, B., et al. (1989). Visual evoked potentials: Relation to adult speechreading and cognitive function. J Speech Hear Res, 32, 725-735.
50. Rönnberg, J., Rudner, M., Foo, C., et al. (2008). Cognition counts: A working memory system for ease of language understanding (ELU). Int J Audiol, 47(Suppl 2), S99-S105.
51. 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.
52. van Rooij, J. C., & Plomp, R. (1991). The effects of linguistic entropy on speech perception in noise in young and elderly listeners. J Am Soc Am, 90, 2985-2991.
53. Rosen, V. M., & Engle, R. W. (1998). Working memory capacity and suppression. J Mem Lang, 39, 418-436.
54. Rudner, M., Foo, C., Sundewall-Thorén, E., et al. (2008). Phonological mismatch and explicit cognitive processing in a sample of 102 hearing-aid users. Int J Audiol, 47, S91-S98.
55. Rudner, M., Foo, C., Rönnberg, J., et al. (2009). Cognition and aided speech recognition in noise: Specific role for cognitive factors following nine-week experience with adjusted compression settings in hearing aids. Scand J Psychol, 50, 405-418.
56. Rudner, M., Rönnberg, J., Lunner, T. (2011). Working memory supports listening in noise for persons with hearing impairment. J Am Acad Audiol, 22, 1-12.
57. Samuelsson, S., & Rönnberg, J. (1991). Script activation in lipreading. Scand J Psychol, 32, 124-143.
58. Samuelsson, S., & Rönnberg, J. (1993). Implicit and explicit use if scripted constraints in lip-reading. Eur J Cogn Psychol, 5, 201-233.
59. 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.
60. Sheldon, S., Pichora-Fuller, M. K., Schneider, B. A. (2008). Priming and sentence context support listening to noise-vocoded speech by younger and older adults. J Acoust Soc Am, 123, 489-499.
61. Stenfelt, S., & Rönnberg, J. (2009). The Signal-Cognition interface: Interactions between degraded auditory signals and cognitive processes. Scan J Psychol, 50, 385-393.
62. Studebaker, G. A. (1985). A “rationalized” arcsine transform. J Speech Hear Res, 28, 455-462.
63. Tesink, C. M., Magnus Petersson, K. M., van Berkum, J. J., et al. (2009). Unification of speaker and meaning in language comprehension: An fMRI study. J Cogn Neurosci, 21, 2085-2099.
64. van Rooij, J. C., & Plomp, R. (1991). The effects of linguistic entropy on speech perception in noise in young and elderly listeners. J Acoust Soc Am, 90, 2985-2991.
65. 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.
66. Wingfield, A. (1996). Cognitive factors in auditory performance: Context, speed of processing, and constraints of memory. J Am Acad Audiol, 7, 175-182.
67. Wingfield, A., & Tun, P. A. (2007). Cognitive supports and cognitive constraints on comprehension of spoken language. J Am Acad Audiol, 18, 548-558.
68. Wingfield, A., Tun, P. A., McCoy, S. L. (2005). Hearing loss in older adulthood. What it is and how it interacts with cognitive performance. Curr Dir Psychol Sci, 14, 144-148.
69. Zekveld, A. A., George, E. L.., 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.
70. 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.
71. Zekveld, A. A., Kramer, S. E., Festen, J. M. (2011). Cognitive load during speech perception in noise: the influence of age, hearing loss, and cognition on the pupil response. Ear Hear, 32, 498-510.