The relationship of speech intelligibility with hearing sensitivity, cognition, and perceived hearing difficulties varies for different speech perception tests

Frontiers in Psychology

Volumn 6, Issue , 2015, Pages

  Heinrich, Antje ^a   Henshaw, Helen ^b   Ferguson, Melanie A ^b,c  

^a MEDICAL RESEARCH COUNCIL   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NOTTINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

^c NOTTINGHAM UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS NHS TRUST   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

cognition; communication; health related quality of life; non verbal intelligence; self report; speech perception

Indexed keywords

EID: 84974708008     PISSN: None     EISSN: 16641078     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00782     Document Type: Article

References (63)

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), S53–S71. 10.1080/14992020802301142
2. Arlinger S. Gatehouse S. Kiessling J. Naylor G. Verschuure H. Wouters J. (2008). The design of a project to assess bilateral versus unilateral hearing aid fitting. Trends Amplif. 12 137–144. 10.1177/1084713808316171
3. Barrouillet P. Bernardin S. Camos V. (2004). Time constraints and resource sharing in adults’ working memory spans. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 133 83–100. 10.1037/0096-3445.133.1.83
4. Boothroyd A. (2007). Adult aural rehabilitation: what is it and does it work? Trends Amplif. 11 63–71. 10.1177/1084713807301073
5. British Society of Audiology. (2011). Recommended Procedure for the Pure Tone Air and Bone Conduction Threshold Audiometry with and without the Use of Masking and Determination of Uncomfortable Loudness Levels [Online]. Available at: http://www.thebsa.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/BSA_RP_PTA_FINAL_24Sept11_MinorAmend06Feb12.pdf (accessed February 11, 2015).
6. Chisolm T. H. Johnson C. E. Danhauer J. L. Portz L. J. P. Abrams H. B. Lesner S. et al. (2007). A systematic review of health-related quality of life and hearing aids: final report of the American academy of audiology task force on the health-related quality of life benefits of amplification in adults. J. Am. Acad. Audiol. 18 151–184. 10.3766/jaaa.18.2.7
7. Cox R. M. Alexander G. C. (1992). Maturation of hearing aid benefit: objective and subjective measurements. Ear Hear. 13 131–141. 10.1097/00003446-199206000-00001
8. Daneman M. Carpenter P. A. (1980). Individual differences in working memory and reading. J. Verbal Learn. Verbal Behav. 19 450–466. 10.1016/S0022-5371(80)90312-6
9. Danermark B. Cieza A. Gangé J. P. Gimigliano F. Granberg S. Hickson L. et al. (2010). International classification of functioning, disability, and health core sets for hearing loss: a discussion paper and invitation. Int. J. Audiol. 49 256–262. 10.3109/14992020903410110
10. Desjardins J. L. Doherty K. A. (2013). Age-related changes in listening effort for various types of masker noises. Ear Hear. 34 261–272. 10.1097/AUD.0b013e31826d0ba4
11. Engle R. W. Kane M. J. (2003). “Executive attention, working memory capacity, and a two-factor theory of cognitive control,” in Psychology of Learning and Motivation, ed. Ross B. (San Diego, CA: Elsevier), 145–199.
12. Ferguson M. A. Henshaw H. (2015). Auditory training can improve working memory, attention and communication in adverse conditions for adults with hearing loss. Front. Psychol. 6:556. 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00556
13. Ferguson M. A. Henshaw H. Clark D. Moore D. (2014). Benefits of phoneme discrimination training in a randomized controlled trial of 50–74 year olds with mild hearing loss. Ear Hear. 35 e110–e121. 10.1097/AUD.0000000000000020
14. Gatehouse S. (1999). Glasgow hearing aid benefit profile: derivation and validation of a client-centered outcome measure for hearing aid services. J. Am. Acad. Audiol. 10 80–103.
15. Gatehouse S. (2003). Rehabilitation: identification of needs, priorities and expectations, and the evaluation of benefit. Int. J. Audiol. 42 77–83. 10.3109/14992020309074648
16. Gatehouse S. Elberling C. Naylor G. (1999). “Aspects of auditory ecology and psychoacoustic function as determinants of benefits from and candidature for non-linear processing hearing aids,” in Auditory Models and Non-Linear Hearing Instruments, eds Rasmussen A. N. Osterhammel P. A. Andersen T. Poulsen T. (Denmark: The Danavox Jubilee Foundation), 221–233.
17. Gatehouse S. Naylor G. Elberling C. (2003). Benefits from hearing aids in relation to the interaction between the user and the environment. Int. J. Audiol. 42 S77–S85. 10.3109/14992020309074627
18. Gatehouse S. Noble W. (2004). The speech, spatial and qualities of hearing scale (SSQ). Int. J. Audiol. 43 85–99. 10.1080/14992020400050014
19. George E. L. J. Festen J. M. Houtgast T. (2006). Factors affecting masking release for speech in modulated noise for normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 120 2295–2311. 10.1121/1.2266530
20. Granberg S. Dahlström J. Möller C. Kähäri K. Danermark B. (2014). The ICF Core Sets for hearing loss–researcher perspective. Part I: systematic review of outcome measures identified in audiological research. Int. J. Audiol. 53 65–76. 10.3109/14992027.2013.851799
21. Grutters J. P. C. Joore M. A. Van Der Horst F. Verschuure H. Dreschler W. A. Anteunis L. J. C. (2007). Choosing between measures: comparison of EQ-5D, HUI2 and HUI3 in persons with hearing complaints. Qual. Life Res. 16 1439–1449. 10.1007/s11136-007-9237-x
22. Henshaw H. Mccormack A. Ferguson M. A. (in press). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation drives computer-based auditory training uptake, engagement, and adherence for people with hearing(loss). Front. Aud. Cogn. Neurosci.
23. Hickson L. Scarinci N. (2007). Older adults with acquired hearing impairment: applying the ICF in rehabilitation. Semin. Speech Lang. 28 283–290. 10.1055/s-2007-986525
24. 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. Int. J. Audiol. 47 287–295. 10.1080/14992020802127109
25. Humes L. E. Dubno J. R. (2010). “Factors affecting speech understanding in older adults,” in The Aging Auditory System, eds Gordon-Salant S. Frisina R. D. Popper A. N. Fay R. R. (New York, NY: Springer), 211–258.
26. Humes L. E. Garner C. B. Wilson D. L. Barlow N. N. (2001). Hearing-aid outcome measures following one month of hearing aid use by the elderly. J. Speech Lang. Hear. Res. 44 469–486. 10.1044/1092-4388(2001/037)
27. Humes L. E. Kidd G. R. Lentz J. J. (2013). Auditory and cognitive factors underlying individual differences in aided speech-understanding among older adults. Front. Syst. Neurosci. 7:55. 10.3389/fnsys.2013.00055
28. Humes L. E. Lee J. H. Coughlin M. P. (2006). Auditory measures of selective and divided attention in young and older adults using single-talker competition. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 120 2926–2937. 10.1121/1.2354070
29. Humes L. E. Roberts L. (1990). Speech-recognition difficulties of the hearing-impaired elderly: the contributions of audibility. J. Speech Hear. Res. 33 726–735. 10.1044/jshr.3304.726
30. Jansen S. Luts H. Wagener K. C. Frachet B. Wouters J. (2010). The French digit triplet test: a hearing screening tool for speech intelligibility in noise. Int. J. Audiol. 49 378–387. 10.3109/14992020903431272
31. Joore M. A. Potjewijd J. Timmerman A. A. Auteunis L. J. (2002). Response shift in the measurement of quality of life in hearing impaired adults after hearing aid fitting. Qual. Life Res. 11 299–307. 10.1023/A:1015598807510
32. Kempe V. Thoresen J. C. Kirk N. W. Schaeffler F. Brooks P. J. (2012). Individual differences in the discrimination of novel speech sounds: effects of sex, temporal processing, musical and cognitive abilities. PLoS ONE 7:e48623. 10.1371/journal.pone.0048623
33. Koelewijn T. Zekveld A. A. Festen J. M. Ronnberg J. Kramer S. E. (2012). Processing load induced by informational masking is related to linguistic abilities. Int. J. Otolaryngol. 2012:865731. 10.1155/2012/865731
34. Levitt H. (1971). Transformed up-down methods in psychoacoustics. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 49 467–477. 10.1121/1.1912375
35. MacLeod A. Summerfield Q. (1990). A procedure for measuring auditory and audio-visual speech-reception thresholds for sentences in noise: rationale, evaluation, and recommendations for use. Br. J. Audiol. 24 29–43. 10.3109/03005369009077840
36. Mattys S. Davis M. H. Bradlow A. R. Scott S. K. (2012). Speech recognition in adverse conditions: a review. Lang. Cogn. Process. 27 953–978. 10.1080/01690965.2012.705006
37. Mayo L. H. Florentine M. Buus S. (1997). Age of second-language acquisition and perception of speech in noise. J. Speech Lang. Hear. Res. 40 686–693. 10.1044/jslhr.4003.686
38. Miyake A. Friedman N. P. Emerson M. J. Witzki A. H. Howerter A. Wager T. D. (2000). The unity and diversity of executive functions and their contributions to complex “Frontal Lobe” tasks: a latent variable analysis. Cognit. Psychol. 41 49–100. 10.1006/cogp.1999.0734
39. Moradi S. Lidestam B. Saremi A. Ronnberg J. (2014). Gated auditory speech perception: effects of listening conditions and cognitive capacity. Front. Psychol. 5:531. 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00531
40. Nabelek A. K. Tucker F. M. Letowski T. R. (1991). Toleration of background noises: relationship with patterns of hearing aid use by elderly persons. J. Speech Hear. Res. 34 679–685. 10.1044/jshr.3403.679
41. Plomp R. Mimpen A. M. (1979). Improving the reliability of testing the speech reception threshold for sentences. Audiology 18 43–52. 10.3109/00206097909072618
42. Robertson I. H. Ward T. Ridgeway V. Nimmo-Smith I. (1994). The Test of Everyday Attention. Bury St. Edmunds: Thames Valley Test Company.
43. Rogers C. L. Lister J. J. Febo D. M. (2006). Effects of bilingualism, noise, and reverberation on speech perception by listeners with normal hearing. Appl. Psycholinguist. 27 465–485. 10.1017/S014271640606036X
44. Rönnberg J. Rudner M. Lunner T. Zekveld A. A. (2010). When cognition kicks in: working memory and speech understanding in noise. Noise Health 12 26326–26329. 10.4103/1463-1741.70505
45. Rudner M. Foo C. Sundewall-Thorén E. Lunner T. Rönnberg J. (2008). Phonological mismatch and explicit cognitive processing in a sample of 102 hearing-aid users. Int. J. Audiol. 47(Suppl. 2), S91–S98. 10.1080/14992020802304393
46. Saunders G. H. Chisolm T. H. Abrams H. B. (2005). Measuring hearing aid outcomes–not as easy as it seems. J. Rehabil. Res. Dev. 42 157–168. 10.1682/JRRD.2005.01.0001
47. Schneider B. A. Pichora-Fuller M. K. (2000). “Implications of perceptual deterioration for cognitive aging research,” in The Handbook of Aging and Cognition, eds Craik F. I. M. Salthouse T. A. (Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum), 155–219.
48. Schneider B. A. Pichora-Fuller M. K. Daneman M. (2010). “Effects of senescent changes in audition and cognition on spoken language comprehension,” in The Aging Auditory System, eds Gordon-Salant S. Frisina R. D. Popper A. N. Fay R. R. (New York, NY: Springer), 167–210.
49. Smits C. Goverts T. Festen J. M. (2013). The digits-in-noise test: assessing auditory speech recognition abilities in noise. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 133 1693–1706. 10.1121/1.4789933
50. Smits C. Houtgast T. (2005). Results from the Dutch speech-in-noise screening test by telephone. Ear Hear. 26 89–95. 10.1097/00003446-200502000-00008
51. Smits C. Kapteyn T. S. Houtgast T. (2004). Development and validation of an automatic speech-in-noise screening test by telephone. Int. J. Audiol. 43 15–28. 10.1080/14992020400050004
52. Stark P. Hickson L. (2004). Outcomes of hearing aid fitting for(older)people with hearing impairment and their significant others. Int. J. Audiol. 43 390–398. 10.1080/14992020400050050
53. Steiger J. H. (1980). Tests for comparing elements of a correlation matrix. Psychol. Bull. 87 245–251. 10.1037/0033-2909.87.2.245
54. Stucki G. Grimby G. (2004). Foreword: applying the ICF in medicine. J. Rehabil. Med. 44 5–6. 10.1080/16501960410022300
55. The EuroQol Group. (1990). EuroQol – a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy 16 199–208. 10.1016/0168-8510(90)90421-9
56. van Rooij J. C. G. M. Plomp R. (1990). Auditive and cognitive factors in speech perception by elderly listeners. II. Multivariate analyses. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 88 2611–2624. 10.1121/1.399981
57. Vlaming M. S. M. G. Kollmeier B. Dreschler W. A. Martin R. Wouters J. Grover B. et al. (2011). HearCom: hearing in the communication Society. Acta Acust. United Acust. 97 175–192. 10.3813/AAA.918397
58. ®), 3rd Edn. San Antonio, TX: Harcourt Assessment.
59. Wechsler D. (1999). Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence (WASI). San Antonio, TX: Harcourt Assessment.
60. WHO. (2001). International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). Geneva: WHO.
61. Wilson R. H. Carnell C. S. Cleghorn A. L. (2007). The Words-in-Noise (WIN) test with multitalker babble and speech-spectrum noise maskers. J. Am. Acad. Audiol. 18 522–529.
62. Wingfield A. Tun P. A. (2007). Cognitive supports and cognitive constraints on comprehension of spoken language. J. Am. Acad. Audiol. 18 548–558. 10.3766/jaaa.18.7.3
63. 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. 10.1111/j.0963-7214.2005.00356.x