What does successful speech-in-noise perception in aging depend on? Electrophysiological correlates of high and low performance in older adults

Neuropsychologia

Volumn 70, Issue , 2015, Pages 43-57

  Getzmann, Stephan ^a   Wascher, Edmund ^a   Falkenstein, Michael ^a  

^a LEIBNIZ RESEARCH CENTRE FOR WORKING ENVIRONMENT AND HUMAN FACTORS   (Germany)

Author keywords

Aging; Event related potentials; Spoken language understanding

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; AGING; ARTICLE; ATTENTION; COMPREHENSION; CONTROLLED STUDY; ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY; EVENT RELATED POTENTIAL; FEMALE; HEARING; HUMAN; MALE; MENTAL PERFORMANCE; SPEECH; SPEECH IN NOISE PERCEPTION; AGE; AUDIOMETRY; AUDITORY STIMULATION; DEPTH PERCEPTION; EVOKED AUDITORY RESPONSE; MIDDLE AGED; NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL TEST; NOISE; PHYSIOLOGY; PSYCHOPHYSICS; REACTION TIME; SPEECH PERCEPTION; YOUNG ADULT;

ACOUSTIC STIMULATION; ADULT; AGE FACTORS; AGED; AGING; ATTENTION; AUDIOMETRY; EVOKED POTENTIALS, AUDITORY; FEMALE; HEARING; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL TESTS; NOISE; PSYCHOACOUSTICS; REACTION TIME; SPACE PERCEPTION; SPEECH; SPEECH PERCEPTION; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84923017257     PISSN: 00283932     EISSN: 18733514     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2015.02.009     Document Type: Article

References (91)

1. Akeroyd M.A. 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, 47:53-71.
2. Anderer P., Semlitsch H.V., Saletu B. Multichannel auditory event-related brain potentials: effects of normal aging on the scalp distribution of N1, P2, N2 and P300 latencies and amplitudes. Electroencephalogr. Clin. Neurophysiol. 1996, 99:458-472.
3. Anderson S., Parbery-Clark A., Yi H.G., Kraus N. A neural basis of speech-in-noise perception in older adults. Ear Hear. 2011, 32:750-757.
4. Anderson S., Parbery-Clark A., White-Schwoch T., Kraus N. Aging affects neural precision of speech encoding. J. Neurosci. 2012, 32:14156-14164.
5. Anderson S., Parbery-Clark A., White-Schwoch T., Kraus N. Auditory brainstem response to complex sounds predicts self-reported speech-in-noise performance. J. Speech, Lang. Hear. Res. 2013, 56:31-43.
6. Bäumler G. Farb-Wort-Interferenztest (FWIT) nach J.R. Stroop 1985, Hogrefe, Göttingen.
7. Barrett G., Neshige R., Shibasaki H. Human auditory and somatosensory event-related potentials: effects of response condition and age. Electroencephalogr. Clin. Neurophysiol. 1987, 66:409-419.
8. Benichov J., Cox L.C., Tun P.A., Wingfield A. Word recognition within a linguistic context: effects of age, hearing acuity, verbal ability, and cognitive function. Ear Hear. 2012, 33:250-256.
9. Bertoli S., Smurzynski J., Probst R. Effects of age, age-related hearing loss, and contralateral cafeteria noise on the discrimination of small frequency changes: psychoacoustic and electrophysiological measures. J. Assoc. Res. Otolaryngol. 2005, 6:207-222.
10. Best V., Gallun F.J., Mason C.R., Kidd G., Shinn-Cunningham B.G. The impact of noise and hearing loss on the processing of simultaneous sentences. Ear Hear. 2010, 31:213-220.
11. Blauert J. Spatial hearing: the psychophysics of human sound localization 1997, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
12. Brickenkamp R. Test d2: Aufmerksamkeits-Belastungs-Test 2002, Hogrefe, Göttingen.
13. Burke D.M., Shafto M.A. Language and Aging. The Handbook of Aging and Cognition 2008, 373-443. Psychology Press, New York, NY. F.I.M. Craik, T.A. Salthouse (Eds.).
14. Boutros N.N., Gjini K., Urbach H., Pflieger M.E. Mapping repetition suppression of the N100 evoked response to the human cerebral cortex. Biol. Psychiatry 2011, 69:883-889.
15. Cabeza R., Anderson N.D., Locantore J.K., McIntosh A.R. Aging gracefully: compensatory brain activity in high-performing older adults. Neuroimage 2002, 17:1394-1402.
16. Conway A.R., Cowan N., Bunting M.F. The cocktail party phenomenon revisited: the importance of working memory capacity. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 2001, 8:331-335.
17. Craik F.I. The role of cognition in age-related hearing loss. J. Am. Acad. Audiol. 2007, 18:539-547.
18. Davis M.H., Johnsrude I.S. Hierarchical processing in spoken language comprehension. J. Neurosci. 2003, 23:3423-3431.
19. Debruille J.B. The N400 potential could index a semantic inhibition. Brain Res. Rev. 2007, 56:472-477.
20. Debruille J.B., Ramirez D., Wolf Y., Schaefer A., Nguyen T.-V., Bacon B.A., Renoult L., Brodeur M. Knowledge inhibition and N400: a within- and a between-subjects study with distractor words. Brain Res. 2008, 1187:167-183.
21. Drennan W.R., Watson C.S. Sources of variation in profile analysis I: individual differences and extended training. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2001, 110:2491-2497.
22. Eimer M. The Time Course Of Spatial Attention: Insights From Event-related Brain Potentials. The Oxford Handbook of Attention 2014, 289-317. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK. A.C. Nobre, S. Kastner (Eds.).
23. Falkenstein M., Hoormann J., Hohnsbein J. Inhibition-related ERP components: variation with modality, age, and time-on-task. J. Psychophysiol. 2002, 16:167-175.
24. Fitzgibbons P.J., Gordon-Salant S. BehavIoural Studies With Aging Humans: Hearing Sensitivity And Psychophysics. The Aging Auditory System 2010, 111-134. Springer, New York, NY. S. Gordon-Salant, R.D. Frisna, A.N. Popper, R.R. Fay (Eds.).
25. Folstein J.R., Van Petten C. Influence of cognitive control and mismatch on the N2 component of the ERP: a review. Psychophysiology 2008, 45:152-170.
26. Friedman D., Simpson G., Hamberger M. Age-related changes in scalp topography to novel and target stimuli. Psychophysiology 1993, 30:383-396.
27. Gaillard A.W. Problems and paradigms in ERP research. Biol. Psychol. 1988, 26:91-109.
28. Garinis A.C., Glattke T., Cone B.K. The MOC reflex during active listening to speech. J. Speech Lang. Hear. Res. 2011, 54:1464-1476.
29. Gazzaley A., D'Esposito M. Top-down modulation and normal aging. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 2007, 1097:67-83.
30. Getzmann S. Handicapped due to age? Behavioural and electrophysiological correlates of speech perception of dichotically presented narratives in young and middle-aged listeners. J. Psychophysiol. 2012, 26:132-144.
31. Getzmann S., Falkenstein M. Understanding of spoken language under challenging listening conditions in younger and older listeners: a combined behavioural and electrophysiological study. Brain Res. 2011, 1415:8-22.
32. Getzmann S., Lewald J. Effects of natural versus artificial spatial cues on electrophysiological correlates of auditory motion. Hear. Res. 2010, 259:44-54.
33. Gratton G., Coles M.G.H., Donchin E. A new method for off-line removal of ocular artifact. Electroencephalogr. Clin. Neurophysiol. 1983, 55:468-484.
34. Grunwald T., Boutros N.N., Pezer N., von O.J., Fernandez G., Schaller C., Elger C.E. Neuronal substrates of sensory gating within the human brain. Biol. Psychiatry 2003, 53:511-519.
35. Hannemann R., Obleser J., Eulitz C. Top-down knowledge supports the retrieval of lexical information from degraded speech. Brain Res. 2007, 1153:134-143.
36. Harris K.C., Vaden K.I., Dubno J.R. Auditory-evoked cortical activity: contribution of brain noise, phase locking, and spectral power. J. Basic Clin. Physiol. Pharmacol. 2014, 25:277-284.
37. Hasher L., Zacks R.T. Working Memory, Comprehension, and Aging: A Review and a New View. The Psychology of Learning and Motivation 1988, 193-225. Academic Press, New York, NY. G.H. Bower (Ed.).
38. Hillyard S.A., Hink R.F., Schwent V.L., Picton T.W. Electrical signs of selective attention in the human brain. Science 1973, 182:177-180.
39. Horváth J., Winkler I., Bendixen A. Do N1/MMN, P3a, and RON form a strongly coupled chain reflecting the three stages of auditory distraction?. Biol. Psychol. 2008, 79:139-147.
40. Howell D.C. Statistical methods for psychology 2012, Cengage Wadsworth, Belmont.
41. Hultsch D.F., MacDonald S.W., Dixon R.A. Variability in reaction time performance of younger and older adults. J. Gerontol. B. Psychol. Sci. Soc. Sci 2002, 57:101-115.
42. Humes L.E. The contributions of audibility and cognitive factors to the benefit provided by amplified speech to older adults. J. Am. Acad. Audiol. 2007, 18:590-603.
43. Humes L.E., Dubno J.R. Factors Affecting Speech Understanding in Older Adults. The Aging Auditory System 2010, 211-257. Springer, New York, NY. S. Gordon-Salant, R.D. Frisna, A.N. Popper, R.R. Fay (Eds.).
44. Humes L.E., Dubno J.R., Gordon-Salant S., Lister J.J., Cacace A.T., Cruickshanks K.J., Gates G.A., Wilson R.H., Wingfield A. Central presbycusis: a review and evaluation of the evidence. J. Am. Aca. Audiol. 2012, 23:635-666.
45. Kidd G.R., Watson C.S., Gygi B. Individual differences in auditory abilities. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2007, 122:418-435.
46. Kraus N., Strait D., Parbery-Clark A. Cognitive factors shape brain networks for auditory skills: spotlight on auditory working memory. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 2012, 1252:100-107.
47. Kutas M., Federmeier K.D. Thirty years and counting: finding meaning in the N400 component of the event-related brain potential (ERP). Ann. Rev. Psychol. 2011, 62:621-647.
48. Kutas M., Iragui V. The N400 in a semantic categorization task across six decades. Electroencephalogr. Clin. Neurophysiol. 1998, 108:456-471.
49. Lehrl S. Mehrfachwahl-Wortschatz-Intelligenztest MWT-B 2005, Spitta Verlag, Balingen.
50. Lovrich D., Novick B., Vaughan H.G. Topographic analysis of auditory event-related potentials associated with acoustic and semantic processing. Electroencephalogr. Clin. Neurophysiol. 1988, 71:40-54.
51. Luck S.J., Woodman G.E., Vogel E.K. Event-related potential studies of attention. Trends Cogn. Sci. 2000, 4:432-440.
52. MacCallum R.C., Zhang S., Preacher K.J., Rucker D.D. On the practice of dichotomization of quantitative variables. Psychol. Methods 2002, 7:19.
53. MacDonald H., Davis M., Pichora-Fuller M.K., Johnsrude I. 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. 2008, 123:3887.
54. Melara R.D., Rao A., Tong Y. The duality of selection: excitatory and inhibitory processes in auditory selective attention. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform 2002, 28:279-306.
55. Miettinen I., Tiitinen H., Alku P., May P.J. Sensitivity of the human auditory cortex to acoustic degradation of speech and non-speech sounds. BMC Neurosci. 2010, 11:24.
56. Näätänen R., Picton T.W. The N1 wave of the human electric and magnetic response to sound: a review and an analysis of the component structure. Psychophysiology 1987, 24:375-425.
57. Neher T., Laugesen S., Jensen N.S., Kragelund L. Can basic auditory and cognitive measures predict hearing-impaired listeners' localization and spatial speech recognition abilities?. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2011, 130:1542-1558.
58. Obleser J., Wise R.J.S., Dresner M.A., Scott S.K. Functional integration across brain regions improves speech perception under adverse listening conditions. J. Neurosci. 2007, 27:2283-2289.
59. Obleser J., Kotz S.A. Expectancy constraints in degraded speech modulate the language comprehension network. Cereb. Cortex 2010, 20:633-640.
60. Obleser J., Kotz S.A. Multiple brain signatures of integration in the comprehension of degraded speech. NeuroImage 2011, 55:713-723.
61. Passow S., Westerhausen R., Wartenburger I., Hugdahl K., Heekeren H.R., Lindenberger U., Li S.-C. Human aging compromises attentional control of auditory perception. Psychol. Aging 2012, 27:99-105.
62. Patel S.H., Azzam P.N. Characterization of N200 and P300: Selected studies of the event related potential. Int. J. Med. Sci. 2005, 2:147-154.
63. Peelle J.E., Troiani V., Wingfield A., Grossman M. Neural processing during older adults' comprehension of spoken sentences: age differences in resource allocation and connectivity. Cereb. Cortex 2010, 20:773-782.
64. Petrides M., Alivisatos B., Evans A., Meyer E. Dissociation of human mid-dorsolateral from posterior dorsolateral frontal cortex in memory processing. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 1993, 90:873-877.
65. Pichora-Fuller M.K., Singh G. Effects of age on auditory and cognitive processing: implications for hearing aid fitting and audiologic rehabilitation. Trends Ampfli. 2006, 10:29-59.
66. Pichora-Fuller M.K. Use of supportive context by younger and older adult listeners: balancing bottom-up and top-down information processing. Int. J. Audiol. 2008, 47(Suppl. 2):S72-S82.
67. Pichora-Fuller, M.K. 2009. Using the brain when the ears are challenged helps healthy older listeners compensate and preserve communication function. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Adult Conference,"Hearing Care for Adults 2009 - the Challenge of Aging", Phonak, Chicago, pp. 53-65.
68. Polich J. Normal variation of P300 from auditory stimuli. Electroencephalogr. Clin. Neurophysiol. 1986, 65:236-240.
69. Polich J. Updating P300: an integrative theory of P3a and P3b. Clin. Neurophysiol. 2007, 118:2128-2148.
70. Potts G.F. An ERP index of task relevance evaluation of visual stimuli. Brain Cogn. 2004, 56:5-13.
71. Ruggles D., Shinn-Cunningham B.G. Spatial selective auditory attention in the presence of reverberant energy: individual differences in normal-hearing listeners. J. Assoc. Res. Otolaryngol. 2011, 12:395-405.
72. Ruggles D., Bharadwaj H., Shinn-Cunningham B.G. Normal hearing is not enough to guarantee robust encoding of suprathreshold features important in everyday communication. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2011, 108:15516-15521.
73. Schneider D., Beste C., Wascher E. On the time course of bottom-up and top-down processes in selective visual attention: an EEG study. Psychophysiology 2012, 49:1492-1503.
74. Schneider B.A., Pichora-Fuller M.K., Daneman M. Effects of Senescent Changes in Audition and Cognition on Spoken Language Comprehension. The Aging Auditory System 2010, 167-210. Springer, New York, NY. S. Gordon-Salant, R.D. Frisna, A.N. Popper, R.R. Fay (Eds.).
75. Shang M., Debruille J.B. N400 processes inhibit inappropriately activated representations: adding a piece of evidence from a high-repetition design. Neuropsychologia 2013, 51:1989-1997.
76. Skrandies W. Global field power and topographic similarity. Brain Topogr. 1990, 3:137-141.
77. Smith D.B., Michalewski H.J., Brent G.A., Thompson L.W. Auditory averaged evoked potentials and aging: factors of stimulus, task and topography. Biol. Psychol. 1980, 11:135-151.
78. Song J., Skoe E., Banai K., Kraus N. Perception of speech in noise: Neural correlates. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 2011, 23:2268-2279.
79. Surprenant A.M., Watson C.S. Individual differences in the processing of speech and non-speech sounds by normal-hearing listeners. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2001, 110:2086-2095.
80. Tombaugh T.N. Trail Making Test A and B: Normative data stratified by age and education. Arch. Clin. Neuropsychol. 2004, 19:203-214.
81. Tyler L.K., Shafto M.A., Randall B., Wright P., Marslen-Wilson W.D., Stamatakis E.A. Preserving syntactic processing across the adult life span: the modulation of the frontotemporal language system in the context of age-related atrophy. Cereb. Cortex 2010, 20:352-364.
82. Van der Linden M., Hupet M., Feyereisen P., Schelstraete M.-A., Bestgen Y., Bruyer R., Lories G., El Ahmadi A., Seron X. Cognitive mediators of age-related differences in language comprehension and verbal memory performance. Aging Neuropsychol. Cogn. 1999, 6:32-55.
83. Wascher E., Beste C. Spatial representations as an emergent feature of perceptual processing: evidence from human electrophysiology. J. Psychophysiol. 2010, 24:161-172.
84. Wascher E., Falkenstein M., Wild-Wall N. Age related strategic differences in processing irrelevant information. Neurosci. Lett. 2011, 487:66-69.
85. Wascher E., Getzmann S. Rapid mental fatigue amplifies age-related attentional deficits. J. Psychophysiol. 2014, 28:215-224.
86. Wascher E., Hoffmann S., Sänger J., Grosjean M. Visuo-spatial processing and the N1 component of the ERP. Psychophysiology 2009, 46:1270-1277.
87. West R.L. An application of prefrontal cortex function theory to cognitive aging. Psychol. Bull. 1996, 120:272-292.
88. Wingfield A., Grossman M. Language and the aging brain: patterns of neural compensation revealed by functional brain imaging. J. Neurophysiol. 2006, 96:2830-2839.
89. Wingfield A., Tun P.A., McCoy S.L. Hearing loss in older adulthood: what it is and how it interacts with cognitive performance. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 2005, 14:144-148.
90. Wong P.C., Jin J.X., Gunasekera G.M., Abel R., Lee E.R., Dhar S. Aging and cortical mechanisms of speech perception in noise. Neuropsychologia 2009, 47:693-703.
91. Zekveld A.A., Heslenfeld D.J., Festen J.M., Schoonhoven R. Top-down and bottom-up processes in speech comprehension. Neuroimage 2006, 32:1826-1836.