Cognitive processing load during listening is reduced more by decreasing voice similarity than by increasing spatial separation between target and masker speech

Frontiers in Neuroscience

Volumn , Issue 8 APR, 2014, Pages

  Zekveld, Adriana A ^a,b,c   Rudner, Mary ^a,b   Kramer, Sophia E ^c   Lyzenga, Johannes ^c   Rönnberg, Jerker ^a,b  

^a LINKÖPING UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^b ÖREBRO UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^c VU UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Cognitive abilities; Interfering speech; Pupil response; Spatial cues; Speech perception; Voice cues

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; ASSOCIATION; AUDITORY STIMULATION; AUDITORY THRESHOLD; COGNITION; EXECUTIVE FUNCTION; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; MALE; NORMAL HUMAN; PERCEPTION; PSYCHOLOGIC TEST; PUPIL REFLEX; PUPILLOMETRY; READING; SEX DIFFERENCE; SIGNAL NOISE RATIO; SPEECH DISCRIMINATION; SPEECH INTELLIGIBILITY; SPEECH PERCEPTION; TASK PERFORMANCE; VOICE; WORKING MEMORY; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84904963050     PISSN: 16624548     EISSN: 1662453X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3389/fnins.2014.00088     Document Type: Article

References (58)

1. Ahern, S., and Beatty, J. (1979). Pupillary responses during information processing vary with scholastic aptitude test scores. Science 205, 1289-1292. doi: 10.1126/science.472746
2. 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. doi: 10.1080/14992020802301142
3. Algazi, V. R., Duda, R. O., Thompson, D. M., and Avendano, C. (2001). "The CIPIC HRTF Database," in Proceedings 2001 IEEE Workshop on Applications of Signal Processing to Audio and Electroacoustics (New Paltz, NY: Mohonk Mountain House), 99-102.
4. Andersson, U., Lyxell, B., Rönnberg, J., and Spens, K.-E. (2001). Cognitive correlates of visual speech understanding in hearing-impaired individuals. J. Deaf Stud. Deaf Educ. 6, 103-116. doi: 10.1093/deafed/6.2.103
5. ANSI (1997). ANSI S3.5-1997 American national standard methods for calculation of the speech intelligibility index. New York, NY: American National Standards Institute.
6. Arbogast, T. L., Mason, C. R., and Kidd, G. Jr. (2002). The effect of spatial separation on informational and energetic masking of speech. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 112, 2086-2098. doi: 10.1121/1.1510141
7. Arbogast, T. L., Mason, C. R., and Kidd, G. Jr. (2005). The effect of spatial separation on informational masking of speech in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 117, 2169-2180. doi: 10.1121/1.1861598
8. Arlinger, S., Lunner, T., Lyxell, B., and Pichora-Fuller, M. K. (2009). The emergence of cognitive hearing science. Scan. J. Psychol. 50, 371-384. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9450.2009.00753.x
9. Baddeley, A., Logie, R., Nimmo-Smith, I., and Brereton, N. (1985). Components of fluent reading. J. Mem. Lang. 24, 119-131. doi: 10.1016/0749-596X(85)90019-1
10. Bailey, I. L., and Lovie, J. E. (1980). The design and use of a near-vision chart. Am. J. Optom. Physiol. Opt. 57, 378-387. doi: 10.1097/00006324-198006000-00011
11. Beatty, J. (1982). Task-evoked pupillary responses, processing load, and the structure of processing resources. Psychol. Bull. 91, 276-292. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.91.2.276
12. Beatty, J., and Lucero-Wagoner, B. (2000). "The pupillary system," in Handbook of Psychophysiology, 2nd Edn., eds J. T. Cacioppo, L. G. Tassinary, and G. G. Berntson (New York, NY: Cambridge University Press), 142-162.
13. Besser, J., Koelewijn, T., Zekveld, A. A., Kramer, S. E., and Festen, J. M. (2013). How linguistic closure and verbal working memory relate to speech recognition in noise - a review. Trends Amplif. 17, 75-93. doi: 10.1177/1084713813495459
14. Besser, J., Zekveld, A. A., Kramer, S. E., Rönnberg, J., and 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. J. Speech Lang. Hear. Res. 55, 194-209. doi: 10.1044/1092-4388(2011/11-0008)
15. Best, V., Marrone, N., Mason, C. R., and Kidd, G. Jr. (2012). The influence of non-spatial factors on measures of spatial release from masking. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 131, 3103-3110. doi: 10.1121/1.3693656
16. Brungart, D. S. (2001). Informational and energetic masking effects in the perception of two simultaneous talkers. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 109, 1101-1109. doi: 10.1121/1.1345696
17. Brungart, D. S., Simpson, B. D., Ericson, M. A., and Scott, K. T. (2001). Informational and energetic masking effects in the perception of multiple simultaneous talkers. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 110, 2527-2538. doi: 10.1121/1.1408946
18. Cameron, S., and Dillon, H. (2007). Development of the listening in spatialized noise-sentences test (LISN-S). Ear Hear. 28, 196-211. doi: 10.1097/AUD.0b013e318031267f
19. Cameron, S., Glyde, H., and Dillon, H. (2011). Listening in spatialized noise - sentences test (LiSN-S): Normative and retest reliability data for adolescents and adults up to 60 years of age. J. Am. Acad. Audiol. 22, 697-709. doi: 10.3766/jaaa.22.10.7
20. Daneman, M., and Carpenter, P. A. (1980). Individual-differences in working memory and reading. J. Verb. Learn. Verb Behav. 19, 450-466. doi: 10.1016/S0022-5371(80)90312-6
21. Ellis, R. J., and Munro, K. J. (2013). Does cognitive function predict frequency compressed speech recognition in listeners with normal hearing and cognition? Int. J. Audiol. 52, 14-22. doi: 10.3109/14992027.2012.721013
22. Engelhardt, P. E., Ferreira, F., and Patsenko, E. G. (2010). Pupillometry reveals processing load during spoken language comprehension. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 63, 639-645. doi: 10.1080/17470210903469864
23. Forster, K. I., and Forster, J. C. (2003). DMDX: a windows display program with millisecond accuracy. Behav. Res. Methods Instrum. Comput. 35, 116-124. doi: 10.3758/BF03195503
24. Gatehouse, S., Naylor, G., and Elberling, C. (2003). Benefits from hearing aids in relation to the interaction between the user and the environment. Int. J. Audiol. 42, S77-S85. doi: 10.3109/14992020309074627
25. Glyde, H., Cameron, S., Dillon, H., Hickson, L., and Seeto, M. (2013). The effects of hearing impairment and aging on spatial processing. Ear Hear. 34, 15-28. doi: 10.1097/AUD.0b013e3182617f94
26. Gosselin, P. A., and Gagné, J.-P. (2011). Older adults expend more effort than young adults recognizing speech in noise. J. Speech Lang. Hear. Res. 54, 944-958 doi: 10.1044/1092-4388(2010/10-0069)
27. Grady, C. (2012). The cognitive neuroscience of ageing. Nat. Rev. Neurosci.13, 491-505. doi: 10.1038/nrn3256
28. Koelewijn, T., Zekveld, A. A., Festen, J. M., and Kramer, S. E. (2012a). Pupil dilation uncovers extra listening effort in the presence of a single-talker masker. Ear Hear. 33, 291-300. doi: 10.1097/AUD.0b013e3182310019
29. Koelewijn, T., Zekveld, A. A., Festen, J. M., Rönnberg, J., and Kramer, S. E. (2012b). Processing load induced by informational masking is related to linguistic abilities. Int. J. Otolaryngol. 2012:865731. doi: 10.1155/2012/865731
30. Kramer, S. E., Zekveld, A. A., and 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. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9450.2009.00747.x
31. Kuchinsky, S. E., Ahlstrom, J. B., Vaden, K. I. Jr., Cutre, S. L., Humes, L. E., Dubno, J. R., et al. (2013). Pupil size varies with word listening and response selection difficulty in older adults with hearing loss. Psychophysiology 50, 23-34. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8986.2012.01477.x
32. Mackersie, C. L., and Cones, H. (2011). Subjective and psychophysiological indices of listening effort in a competing-talker task. J. Am. Acad. Audiol. 22, 113-122. doi: 10.3766/jaaa.22.2.6
33. Mishra, S., Lunner, T., Stenfelt, S., Rönnberg, J., and Rudner, M. (2013a). Seeing the talker's face supports executive processing of speech in steady state noise. Front. Syst. Neurosci. 7:96. doi: 10.3389/fnsys.2013.00096
34. Mishra, S., Lunner, T., Stenfelt, S., Rönnberg, J., and Rudner, M. (2013b). Visual information can hinder working memory processing of speech. J. Speech Lang. Hear. Res. 56, 1120-1132. doi: 10.1044/1092-4388(2012/12-0033)
35. Morris, N., and Jones, D. M. (1990). Memory updating in working memory: the role of the central executive. Brit. J. Psychol. 81, 111-121. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8295.1990.tb02349.x
36. Mueller, J., Kiernan, R., and Langston, J. W. (2001). Cognistat: The Neurobehavioral Cognitive Status Examination. Fairfax, VA: The Northern Californian Neurobehavioral Group.
37. Neher, T., Behrens, T., Carlile, S., Jin, C., Kragelund, L., Specht Petersen, A., et al. (2009). Benefit from spatial separation of multiple talkers in bilateral hearing-aid users: Effects of hearing loss, age, and cognition. Int. J. Audiol. 48, 758-774. doi: 10.3109/14992020903079332
38. Neher, T., Lunner, T., Hopkins, K., and Moore, B. C. J. (2012). Binaural temporal fine structure sensitivity, cognitive function, and spatial recognition of hearing-impaired listeners (L). J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 131, 2561-2564. doi: 10.1121/1.3689850
39. Ng, E. H. N., Rudner, M., Lunner, T., and Rönnberg, J. (2013). Relationships between self-report and cognitive measures of hearing aid outcome. Speech Lang. Hear. 16, 197-207. doi: 10.1179/205057113X13782848890774
40. Picou, E., Ricketts, T. A., and Hornsby, B. W. Y. (2011). Visual cues and listening effort: individual variability. J. Speech Lang. Hear. Res. 54, 1416-1430. doi: 10.1044/1092-4388(2011/10-0154)
41. Piquado, T., Isaacowitz, D., and Wingfield, A. (2010). Pupillometry as a measure of cognitive effort in younger and older adults. Psychophysiology 47, 560-569. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8986.2009.00947.x
42. Plomp, R., and Mimpen, A. M. (1979). Improving the reliability of testing the speech reception threshold for sentences. Audiology 18, 43-52. doi: 10.3109/00206097909072618
43. Rabbitt, P. M. A. (1968). Channel capacity, intelligibility and immediate memory. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 20, 241-248. doi: 10.1080/14640746808400158
44. Rakerd, B., Seitz, P., and Whearty, M. (1996). Assessing the cognitive demands of speech listening for people with hearing loss. Ear Hear. 17, 97-106. doi: 10.1097/00003446-199604000-00002
45. Reitan, R. M. (1958). Validity of the trail making test as an indicator of organic brain damage. Percept. Mot. Skills 8, 271-276. doi: 10.2466/pms.1958.8.3.271
46. 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. doi: 10.3109/14992020309074626
47. Rönnberg, J., Arlinger, S., Lyxell, B., and Kinnefors, C. (1989). Visual evoked potentials: relation to adult speechreading and cognitive function. J. Speech Hear. Res. 32, 725-735.
48. Rönnberg, J., Lunner, T., Zekveld, A. A., Sörqvist, P., Danielsson, H., Lyxell, B., et al. (2013). The Ease of Language Understanding (ELU) model: theoretical, empirical, and clinical advances. Front. Syst. Neurosci.7:31. doi: 10.3389/fnsys.2013.00031
49. Sáñchez-Cubillo, I., Periáñez, J. A., Androver-Roig, D., Rodríguez-Sánchez, J. M., Ríos-Lago, M., Tirapu, J., et al. (2009). Construct validity of the trail making test: role of task-switching, working memory, inhibition/interference control, and visuomotor abilities. J. Int. Neurospych. Soc. 15, 438-450. doi: 10.1017/S1355617709090626
50. Sörqvist, P., Ljungberg, J. K., and Ljung, R. (2010). A sub-process view of working memory capacity: evidence from effects of speech on prose memory. Memory 18, 310-326. doi: 10.1080/09658211003601530
51. Sörqvist, P., and Rönnberg, J. (2012). Episodic long-term memory of spoken discourse masked by speech: What is the role for working memory capacity? J. Speech Lang. Hear. Res. 55, 210-218. doi: 10.1044/1092-4388(2011/10-0353)
52. Van der Meer, E., Beyer, R., Horn, J., Foth, M., Bornemann, B., ries, J., et al. (2010). Resource allocation and fluid intelligence: Insights from pupillometry. Psychophysiology 47, 158-169. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8986.2009.00884.x
53. Versfeld, N. J., Daalder, L., Festen, J. M., and Houtgast, T. (2000). Method for the selection of sentence materials for efficient measurement of the speech reception threshold. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 107, 1671-1684. doi: 10.1121/1.428451
54. Wild, C. J., Yusuf, A., Wilson, D. E., Peelle, J. E., Davis, M. H., and Johnsrude, I. S. (2012). Effortful listening: The processing of degraded speech depends critically on attention. J. Neurosci. 32, 14010-14021. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1528-12.2012
55. Zekveld, A. A., George, E. L. J., Kramer, S. E., Goverts, S. T., and Houtgast, T. (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. doi: 10.1044/1092-4388(2007/040)
56. Zekveld, A. A., and Kramer, S. E. (2014). Cognitive processing load across a wide range of listening conditions: Insights from pupillometry. Psychophysiology 51, 277-284. doi: 10.1111/psyp.12151
57. Zekveld, A. A., Kramer, S. E., and Festen, J. M. (2010). Pupil response as an indication of effortful listening: The influence of sentence intelligibility. Ear Hear. 31, 480-490. doi: 10.1097/AUD.0b013e3181d4f251
58. Zekveld, A. A., Kramer, S. E., and 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. doi: 10.1097/AUD.0b013e31820512bb