How linguistic closure and verbal working memory relate to speech recognition in noise—a review

Trends in Amplification

Volumn 17, Issue 2, 2013, Pages 75-93

  Besser, Jana ^a   Koelewijn, Thomas ^a   Zekveld, Adriana A ^a,b,c   Kramer, Sophia E ^a   Festen, Joost M ^a  

^a VU UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^b Linköping University   (Sweden)

^c LINKÖPING UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

linguistic closure; speech recognition; text reception threshold; working memory span

Indexed keywords

ASSOCIATION; COGNITION; HUMAN; LINGUISTICS; NOISE; PERCEPTION; READING; RECOGNITION; SHORT TERM MEMORY; SPEECH AUDIOMETRY; SPEECH INTELLIGIBILITY; SPEECH PERCEPTION; VERBAL BEHAVIOR; LINGUISTIC CLOSURE; REVIEW; SPEECH DISCRIMINATION; TEXT RECEPTION THRESHOLD; WORKING MEMORY SPAN;

COGNITION; CUES; HUMANS; LINGUISTICS; MEMORY, SHORT-TERM; NOISE; PERCEPTUAL MASKING; READING; RECOGNITION (PSYCHOLOGY); SPEECH INTELLIGIBILITY; SPEECH PERCEPTION; SPEECH RECEPTION THRESHOLD TEST; VERBAL BEHAVIOR;

LINGUISTIC CLOSURE; SPEECH RECOGNITION; TEXT RECEPTION THRESHOLD; WORKING MEMORY SPAN;

EID: 84884228221     PISSN: 10847138     EISSN: 19405588     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1084713813495459     Document Type: Article

References (77)

1. Aaronson N., Alonso J., Burnam A., Lohr K. N., Patrick D. L., Perrin E., Stein R. E. K. (2002). Assessing health status and quality-of-life instruments: Attributes and review criteria. Quality of Life Research, 11, 193-205.
2. 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. International Journal of Audiology, 47(Suppl. 2), S53-S71.
3. Andersson U., Lyxell B., Rönnberg J., Spen K.-E. (2001). Cognitive correlates of visual speech understanding in hearing-impaired individuals. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 6, 103-116.
4. Arehart K. H., Souza P., Baca R., Kates J. M. (2013). Working memory, age, and hearing loss: Susceptibility to hearing aid distortion. Ear and Hearing, 34, 251-260. doi:10.1097/AUD.0b013e318271aa5e
5. Arlinger S., Lunner T., Lyxell B., Pichora-Fuller M. K. (2009). The emergence of cognitive hearing science. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 50, 371-384.
6. Baddeley A. (1992). Working memory. Science, 255, 556-559.
7. Baddeley A., Logie R., Nimmosmith I., Brereton N. (1985). Components of fluent reading. Journal of Memory and Language, 24, 119-131.
8. Bailey I. L., Lovie J. E. (1980). The design and use of a new near-vision chart. American Journal of Optometry and Physiological Optics, 57, 378-387.
9. Baldwin C. L., Ash I. K. (2011). Impact of sensory acuity on auditory working memory span in young and older adults. Psychology and Aging, 26, 85-91.
10. Besser J., Zekveld A. A., Kramer S. E., Rönnberg J., Festen J. M. (2012). New measures of masked text recognition in relation to speech-in-noise perception and their associations with age and cognitive abilities. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 55, 194-209.
11. Bilger R. C., Nuetzel J. M., Rabinowitz W. M., Rzeczkowski C.(1984). Standardization of a test of speech perception in noise. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 27,32-48.
12. Bopp K. L., Verhaeghen P. (2005). Aging and verbal memory span: A meta-analysis. Journals of Gerontology Series B-Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 60, 223-233.
13. Classon E., Rudner M., Rönnberg J. (2013). Working memory compensates for hearing related phonological processing deficit. Journal of Communication Disorders, 46, 17-29.
14. Conway A. R., Kane M. J., Bunting M. F., Hambrick D. Z., Wilhelm O., Engle R. W. (2005). Working memory span tasks: A methodological review and user's guide. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12, 769-786.
15. Crottaz-Herbette S., Anagnoson R. T., Menon V. (2004). Modality effects in verbal working memory: Differential prefrontal and parietal responses to auditory and visual stimuli. Neuroimage, 21, 340-351.
16. Daneman M., Carpenter P. A. (1980). Individual differences in working memory and reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19, 450-466.
17. De Vet H. C. W., Terwee C. B., Knol D. L., Bouter L. M. (2006). When to use agreement versus reliability measures. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 59, 1033-1039.
18. Desjardins J. L., Doherty K. A. (2013). Age-related changes in listening effort for various types of masker noises. Ear and Hearing, 34, 261-272. doi:10.1097/AUD.0b013e31826d0ba4.
19. Ellis R. J., Munro K. J. (2013). Does cognitive function predict frequency compressed speech recognition in listeners with normal hearing and normal cognition? International Journal of Audiology, 52(1), 14-22. doi:10.3109/14992027.2012.721013
20. Engle R. W. (2002). Working memory capacity as executive attention. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 19-23.
21. Engle R. W. (2010). Role of working-memory capacity in cognitive control. Current Anthropology, 51, S17-S26.
22. Festen J. M., Plomp R. (1990). Effects of fluctuating noise and interfering speech on the speech-reception threshold for impaired and normal hearing. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 88, 1725-1736.
23. 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. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 18, 618-631.
24. George E. L. J., Zekveld A. A., Kramer S. E., Goverts S. T., Festen J. M., Houtgast T. (2007). Auditory and non-auditory factors affecting speech reception in noise by older listeners. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 121, 2362-2375.
25. Goolkasian P., Foos P. W. (2002). Presentation format and its effect on working memory. Memory & Cognition, 30, 1096-1105.
26. Goverts S. T., Huysmans E., Kramer S. E., de Groot A. M., Houtgast T. (2011). On the use of the distortion-sensitivity approach in examining the role of linguistic abilities in speech understanding in noise. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 54, 1702-1708.
27. Hagerman B. (1982). Sentences for testing speech intelligibility in noise. Scandinavian Audiology, 11, 79-87.
28. Hagerman B., Kinnefors C. (1995). Efficient adaptive methods for measuring speech reception threshold in quiet and in noise. Scandinavian Audiology, 24, 71-77.
29. Hällgren M., Larsby B., Arlinger S. (2006). A Swedish version of the Hearing In Noise Test (HINT) for measurement of speech recognition. International Journal of Audiology, 45, 227-237.
30. Houtgast T., Festen J. M. (2008). On the auditory and cognitive functions that may explain an individual's elevation of the speech reception threshold in noise. International Journal of Audiology, 47, 287-295.
31. Humes L. E., Burk M. H., Coughlin M. P., Busey T. A., Strausner L. E. (2007). Auditory speech recognition and visual text recognition in younger and older adults: Similarities and differences between modalities and the effect of presentation rate. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 50, 283-303.
32. Kjellberg A., Ljung R. (2008). Recall of words heard in noise. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22, 1088-1098.
33. Koelewijn T., Zekveld A. A., Festen J. M., Rönnberg J., Kramer S. E. (2012). Processing load induced by informational masking is related to linguistic abilities. International Journal of Otolaryngology, 2012, 1-11. doi:10.1155/2012/865731.
34. Kramer S. E., Zekveld A. A., Houtgast T. (2009). Measuring cognitive factors in speech comprehension: The value of the Text Reception Threshold test as a visual equivalent of the SRT test. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 50, 507-515.
35. Krull V., Humes L. E., Kidd G. R. (2013). Reconstructing wholes from parts: Effects of modality, age, and hearing loss on word recognition. Ear and Hearing, 34(2), e14-23. doi:10.1097/AUD.0b013e31826d0c27
36. La Pointe L. B., Engle R. W. (1990). Simple and complex word spans as measures of working memory capacity. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Learning Memory and Cognition, 16, 1118-1133.
37. Ljung R., Kjellberg A. (2009). Long reverberation time decreases recall of spoken information. Journal of Building Acoustics, 16, 301-312.
38. Lunner T. (2003). Cognitive function in relation to hearing aid use. International Journal of Audiology, 42(Suppl. 1), S49-S58.
39. Mishra S., Lunner T., Stenfelt S., Rönnberg J., Rudner M. (2013). Visual information can hinder working memory processing of speech. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research. Advance online publication. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2012/12-0033). Retrieved from http://jslhr.asha.org/cgi/rapidpdf/1092-4388_2012_12-0033v1.pdf
40. Neher T., Behrens T., Carlile S., Jin C., Kragelund L., Specht Petersen A. S., van Schaik A. (2009). Benefit from spatial separation of multiple talkers in bilateral hearing-aid users: Effects of hearing loss, age, and cognition. International Journal of Audiology, 48, 758-774.
41. Neher T., Laugesen S., Jensen N. S., Kragelund L. (2011). Can basic auditory and cognitive measures predict hearing-impaired listeners’ localization and spatial speech recognition abilities? Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 130, 1542-1558.
42. Ng E. H. N., Rudner M., Lunner T., Pedersen M. S., Rönnberg J. (2013). Effects of noise and working memory capacity on memory processing of speech for hearing-aid users. International Journal of Audiology, 52, 433-441.
43. Oberauer K., Suss H. M., Wilhelm O., Wittman W. W. (2003). The multiple faces of working memory: Storage, processing, supervision, and coordination. Intelligence, 31, 167-193.
44. Plomp R., Mimpen A. M. (1979). Improving the reliability of testing the speech reception threshold for sentences. Audiology, 18, 43-52.
45. Rönnberg J. (1990). Cognitive and communicative function: The effect of chronological age. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 2, 253-275.
46. Rönnberg J. (2003). Cognition in the hearing impaired and deaf as a bridge between signal and dialogue: A framework and a model. International Journal of Audiology, 42(Suppl. 1),S68-S76.
47. Rönnberg J., Arlinger S., Lyxell B., Kinnefors C. (1989). Visual evoked potentials: Relation to adult speechreading and cognitive function. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 32, 725-735.
48. Rönnberg J., Rudner M., Foo C., Lunner T. (2008). Cognition counts: A working memory system for ease of language understanding (ELU). International Journal of Audiology, 47(Suppl. 2), S99-S105.
49. Rönnberg J., Rudner M., Lunner T., Zekveld A. A. (2010). When cognition kicks in: Working memory and speech understanding in noise. Noise and Health, 12, 263-269.
50. Rothauser E. H., Chapman W. D., Guttman N., Nordby K. S., Silbiger H. R., Urbanek G. E., Weinstock M. (1969). IEEE recommended practice for speech quality measurements. IEEE Transactions on Audio and Electroacoustics, 17, 227-246.
51. Rudner M., Foo C., Rönnberg J., Lunner T. (2009). Cognition and aided speech recognition in noise: Specific role for cognitive factors following nine-week experience with adjusted compression settings in hearing aids. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 50, 405-418.
52. Rudner M., Foo C., Sundewall-Thoren E., Lunner T., Rönnberg J. (2008). Phonological mismatch and explicit cognitive processing in a sample of 102 hearing-aid users. International Journal of Audiology, 47, S91-S98.
53. Rudner M., Lunner T., Behrens T., Thoren E. S., Rönnberg J. (2012). Working memory capacity may influence perceived effort during aided speech recognition in noise. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 23, 577-589.
54. Rudner M., Rönnberg J., Lunner T. (2011). Working memory supports listening in noise for persons with hearing impairment. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 22, 156-167.
55. Schneider B. A., Daneman M., Pichora-Fuller M. K. (2002). Listening in aging adults: From discourse comprehension to psychoacoustics. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 56, 139-152.
56. Shelton J. T., Elliott E. M., Hill B. D., Calamia M. R., Gouvier W. D. (2009). A Comparison of Laboratory and Clinical Working Memory Tests and Their Prediction of Fluid Intelligence. Intelligence, 37, 283.
57. Sörqvist P., Rönnberg J. (2012). Episodic long-term memory of spoken discourse masked by speech: What is the role for working memory capacity? Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 55, 210-218.
58. Stenfelt S., Rönnberg J. (2009). The Signal-Cognition interface: Interactions between degraded auditory signals and cognitive processes. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 50, 385-393.
59. Turner M. L., Engle R. W. (1989). Is working memory capacity task dependent? Journal of Memory and Language, 28, 127-154.
60. Vergauwe E., Barrouillet P., Camos V. (2010). Do mental processes share a domain-general resource? Psychological Science, 21, 384-390.
61. Verhaeghen P. (2003). Aging and vocabulary scores: A meta-analysis. Psychology and Aging, 18, 332-339.
62. Versfeld N. J., Daalder L., Festen J. M., Houtgast T. (2000). Method for the selection of sentence materials for efficient measurement of the speech reception threshold. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 107, 1671-1684.
63. Wagener K., Josvassen J. L., Ardenkjaer R. (2003). Design, optimization and evaluation of a Danish sentence test in noise. International Journal of Audiology, 42, 10-17.
64. Waters G. S., Caplan D. (1996). The measurement of verbal working memory capacity and its relation to reading comprehension. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A-Human Experimental Psychology, 49, 51-79.
65. Wingfield A., Grossman M. (2006). Language and the aging brain: Patterns of neural compensation revealed by functional brain imaging. Journal of Neurophysiology, 96, 2830-2839.
66. Wingfield A., Tun P. A. (2007). Cognitive supports and cognitive constraints on comprehension of spoken language. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 18, 548-558.
67. Zekveld A. A., Festen J. M., Kramer S. E. (2013). Task difficulty differentially affects two measures of processing load: The pupil response during sentence processing and delayed cued recall of the sentences. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research. Advance online publication. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2012/12-0058). Retrieved from http://jslhr.asha.org/cgi/rapidpdf/1092-4388_2012_12-0058v1.pdf
68. Zekveld A. A., George E. L. J., Houtgast T., Kramer S. E. (in press). Cognitive abilities relate to self-reported hearing disability. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research.
69. Zekveld A. A., George E. L., Kramer S. E., Goverts S. T., Houtgast T. (2007). The development of the text reception threshold test: A visual analogue of the speech reception threshold test. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 50, 576-584.
70. Zekveld A. A., Kramer S. E. (2013). Cognitive processing load across a wide range of listening conditions: Insights from pupillometry. Psychophysiology. Manuscript submitted for publication.
71. Zekveld A. A., Kramer S. E., Festen J. M. (2010). Pupil response as an indication of effortful listening: The influence of sentence intelligibility. Ear and Hearing, 31, 480-490.
72. 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 and Hearing, 32, 498-510.
73. Zekveld A. A., Kramer S. E., Kessens J. M., Vlaming M. S., Houtgast T. (2009). The influence of age, hearing, and working memory on the speech comprehension benefit derived from an automatic speech recognition system. Ear and Hearing, 30, 262-272.
74. Zekveld A. A., Kramer S. E., Vlaming M. S., Houtgast T. (2008). Audiovisual perception of speech in noise and masked written text. Ear and Hearing, 29, 99-111.
75. Zekveld A. A., Rudner M., Johnsrude I. S., Festen J. M., van Beek J. H., Rönnberg J. (2011). The influence of semantically related and unrelated text cues on the intelligibility of sentences in noise. Ear and Hearing, 32, e16-e25.
76. Zekveld A. A., Rudner M., Johnsrude I. S., Heslenfeld D. J., Rönnberg J. (2012). Behavioral and fMRI evidence that cognitive ability modulates the effect of semantic context on speech intelligibility. Brain and Language, 122, 103-113.
77. Zekveld A. A., Rudner M., Johnsrude I. S., Rönnberg J. (2013). Working memory mediates the facilitative effect of semantically related cues on intelligibility. Manuscript submitted for publication.