Cognitive spare capacity as an index of listening effort

Ear and Hearing

Volumn 37, Issue , 2016, Pages 69S-76S

  Rudner, Mary ^a  

^a LINKÖPING UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COGNITION; HUMAN; NOISE; SHORT TERM MEMORY; SPEECH PERCEPTION;

COGNITION; HUMANS; MEMORY, SHORT-TERM; NOISE; SPEECH PERCEPTION;

EID: 84978200032     PISSN: 01960202     EISSN: 15384667     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/AUD.0000000000000302     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (85)

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.
2. Akeroyd M. A., Arlinger S., Bentler R. A., et al. (2015) International Collegium of Rehabilitative Audiology (ICRA) recommendations for the construction of multilingual speech tests. Int J Audiol, 54(Suppl 2), S17-S22.
3. Anguera, J. A., Boccanfuso, J., Rintoul, J. L., et al. (2013). Video game training enhances cognitive control in older adults. Nature, 501, 97-101.
4. Arlinger, S., Lunner, T., Lyxell, B., et al. (2009). The emergence of cognitive hearing science. Scand J Psychol, 50, 371-384.
5. Baddeley, A. (2003). Working memory and language: an overview. J Commun Disord, 36, 189-208.
6. Bavelier, D., & Davidson, R.J. (2013). Games to do you good. Nature, 494, 425-416.
7. Besser, J., Koelewijn, T., Zekveld, A. A., et al. (2013). How linguistic closure and verbal working memory relate to speech recognition in noise: A review. Trends Amplif, 17, 75-93.
8. Brouwer, S., Van Engen, K. J., Calandruccio, L., et al. (2012). Linguistic contributions to speech-on-speech masking for native and non-native listeners: Language familiarity and semantic content. J Acoust Soc Am, 131, 1449-1464.
9. Calandruccio, L., Brouwer, S., Van Engen, K. J., et al. (2013). Masking release due to linguistic and phonetic dissimilarity between the target and masker speech. Am J Audiol, 22, 157-164.
10. Calandruccio, L., & Zhou, H. (2014). Increase in speech recognition due to linguistic mismatch between target and masker speech: Monolingual and simultaneous bilingual performance. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 57, 1089-1097.
11. Classon, E., Rudner, M., Rönnberg, J. (2013). Working memory compensates for hearing related phonological processing deficit. J Commun Disord, 46, 17-29.
12. Daneman, M., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). Individual differences in working memory and reading. J Verbal Learning Verbal Behav, 19, 450-466.
13. DiDonato, R. M., & Surprenant, A. M. (2015). Relatively effortless listening promotes understanding and recall of medical instructions in older adults. Front Psychol, 6, 778.
14. Eckert, M. A., Teubner-Rhodes, S., Vaden, K. (2016). Neuroimaging of adaptive control during speech and language processing. Ear Hear, 37, 101S-110S.
15. Ezzatian, P., Li, L., Pichora-Fuller, K., et al. (2015). Delayed stream segregation in older adults: More than just informational masking. Ear Hear, 36, 482-484.
16. Ezzatian, P., Li, L., Pichora-Fuller, M. K., et al. (2012). The effect of energetic and informational masking on the time-course of stream segregation: Evidence that streaming depends on vocal fine structure cues. Lang Cogn Process, 27, 1056-1088.
17. 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.
18. Grady, C. (2012). The cognitive neuroscience of ageing. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 13, 491-505.
19. Hagerman, B. (1982). Sentences for testing speech intelligibility in noise. Scand Audiol, 11, 79-87.
20. Hagerman, B., & Kinnefors, C. (1995). Efficient adaptive methods for measuring speech reception threshold in quiet and in noise. Scand Audiol, 24, 71-77.
21. Hällgren, M., Larsby, B., Arlinger, S. (2006). A Swedish version of the Hearing In Noise Test (HINT) for measurement of speech recognition. Int J Audiol, 45, 227-237.
22. Hick, C. B., & Tharpe, A. M. (2002). Listening effort and fatigue in schoolage children with and without hearing loss. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 45, 573-584.
23. Hornsby, B. W. Y., Naylor, G., Bess, F. H (2016). A taxonomy of fatigue concepts and their relation to hearing loss. Ear Hear, 37, 136S-144S.
24. Keidser, G., Best, V., Freeston, K., et al. (2015). Cognitive spare capacity: evaluation data and its association with comprehension of dynamic conversations. Front Psychol, 6, 597.
25. Kilman, L., Zekveld, A., Hällgren, M., et al. (2015). Native and non-native speech perception by hearing-impaired listeners in noise-and speech maskers. Trends Hear, 19, pii.
26. Kilman, L., Zekveld, A., Hällgren, M., et al. (2014). The influence of nonnative language proficiency on speech perception performance. Front Psychol, 5, 651.
27. Kilman, L., Zekveld, A. A., Hällgren, M., & Rönnberg, J. (in press). Episodic long-term memory by native and non-native stories masked by speech.
28. Kramer, S. E., Teunissen, C., Zekveld, A. A. (2016). Cortisol, chromogranin A, and pupillary responses evoked by speech recognition tasks in normally hearing and hard-of-hearing listeners: A pilot study. Ear Hear, 37, 126S-135S.
29. Kuchinsky, S. E., Ahlstrom, J. B., Cute, S. L., et al. (2014). Speech-perception training for older adults with hearing loss impacts word recognition and effort. Psychophysiology, 51, 1046-1057.
30. Lin, G., & Carlile, S. (2015). Costs of switching auditory spatial attention in following conversational turn-taking. Front Neurosci, 9, 124.
31. Lunner, T., Rudner, M., Rönnberg, J. (2009). Cognition and hearing aids. Scand J Psychol, 50, 395-403.
32. Lunner, T., Rudner, M., Rosenbom, T., et al. (2016). Using speech recall in hearing aid fitting and outcome evaluation under ecological test conditions. Ear Hear, 37, 145S-154S.
33. Ma, W. J., Husain, M., Bays, P. M. (2014). Changing concepts of working memory. Nat Neurosci, 17, 347-356.
34. Mackersie, C. L., & Calderon-Moultrie, N. Autonomic nervous system reactivity during speech recognition tasks: Heart-rate variability and skin conductance. Ear Hear, 37, 118S-125S.
35. Mackersie, C. L., & Cones, H. (2011). Subjective and psychophysiological indexes of listening effort in a competing-talker task. J Am Acad Audiol, 22, 113-122.
36. Mattys, S. L., Davis, M. H., Bradlow, A. R., et al. (2012). Speech recognition in adverse conditions: A review. Lang Cogn Process, 27, 953-978.
37. 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.
38. McGarrigle, R., Munro, K. J., Dawes, P., et al. (2014). Listening effort and fatigue: What exactly are we measuring? A British Society of Audiology Cognition in Hearing Special Interest Group 'white paper'. Int J Audiol, 53, 433-440.
39. McGettigan, C. (2016, January). You talkin' to me? Paper presented at the Experimental Psychology Society London Meeting, University College London.
40. Mishra, S. (2014). Exploring cognitive spare capacity: Executive processing of degraded speech. Linköping: Linköping University Electronic Press; 2014:58s.
41. Mishra, S., Lunner, T., Stenfelt, S., et al. (2013a). Seeing the talker's face supports executive processing of speech in steady state noise. Front Syst Neurosci, 7, 96.
42. Mishra, S., Lunner, T., Stenfelt, S., et al. (2013b). Visual information can hinder working memory processing of speech. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 56, 1120-1132.
43. Mishra, S., Stenfelt, S., Lunner, T., et al. (2014). Cognitive spare capacity in older adults with hearing loss. Front Aging Neurosci, 6, 96.
44. Miyake, A., Friedman, N. P., Emerson, M. J., et al. (2000). The unity and diversity of executive functions and their contributions to complex "frontal lobe" tasks: A latent variable analysis. Cogn Psychol, 41, 49-100.
45. Neher, T. (2014). Relating hearing loss and executive functions to hearing aid users' preference for, and speech recognition with, different combinations of binaural noise reduction and microphone directionality. Front Neurosci, 8, 391.
46. Ng, E. H. (2013). Cognition in hearing aid users: Memory for everyday speech. Linköping: Linköping University Electronic Press; 2013:61s.
47. Ng, E. H., Rudner, M., Lunner, T., et al. (2013). Effects of noise and working memory capacity on memory processing of speech for hearing-aid users. Int J Audiol, 52, 433-441.
48. Ng, E. H., Rudner, M., Lunner, T., et al. (2015). Noise reduction improves memory for target language speech in competing native but not foreign language speech. Ear Hear, 36, 82-91.
49. Nielsen, J. B., & Dau, T. (2010). The Danish hearing in noise test. Int J Audiol, 50, 202-208.
50. Obleser, J., Wöstmann, M., Hellbernd, N., et al. (2012). Adverse listening conditions and memory load drive a common α oscillatory network. J Neurosci, 32, 12376-12383.
51. Owen, A. M., Hampshire, A., Grahn, J. A., et al. (2010). Putting brain training to the test. Nature, 465, 775-778.
52. Ozyürek, A., Willems, R. M., Kita, S., et al. (2007). On-line integration of semantic information from speech and gesture: Insights from eventrelated brain potentials. J Cogn Neurosci, 19, 605-616.
53. Petersen, E. B., Wöstmann, M., Obleser, J., et al. (2015). Hearing loss impacts neural alpha oscillations under adverse listening conditions. Front Psychol, 6, 177.
54. Pichora-Fuller, M. K. (1996). Speechreading and working memory. In D. Stork & M. Hennecke (Eds.), Speechreading by Humans and Machines: Models, Systems and Applications (pp. 257-274). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
55. Pichora-Fuller, M. K., Kramer, S. E., Eckert, M., et al. (2016). Hearing impairment and cognitive energy: A framework for understanding effortful listening (FUEL). Ear Hear, 37, 5S-27S.
56. 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.
57. Picou, E. M., Ricketts, T. A., Hornsby, B. W. (2011). Visual cues and listening effort: individual variability. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 54, 1416-1430.
58. Rabbitt, P. (1990). Mild hearing loss can cause apparent memory failures which increase with age and reduce with IQ. Acta Otolaryngol Suppl, 476, 167-175.
59. Reuter-Lorenz, P. A., & Cappell, K. A. (2008). Neurocognitive aging and the compensation hypothesis. Curr Direct Psychol Sci, 17, 177-182.
60. Rönnberg, J., Lunner, T., Zekveld, A., et al. (2013). The Ease of Language Understanding (ELU) model: Theoretical, empirical, and clinical advances. Front Syst Neurosci, 7, 31.
61. 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.
62. Rönnberg, J., Rudner, M., & Lunner, T. (2014). Commentary on McGarrigle et al. Listening effort and fatigue: What exactly are we measuring? A British Society of Audiology Cognition in Hearing Special Interest Group "white paper." International Journal of Audiology, 1-13.
63. Rönnberg, N. (2014). Assessing cognitive spare capacity as a measure of listening effort using the Auditory Inference Span Test. Linköping: Linköping University Electronic Press; 2014:66s.
64. Rönnberg, N., Rudner, M., Lunner, T., et al. (2014a). Assessing listening effort by measuring short-term memory storage and processing of speech in noise. Speech Lang Hear, 17, 123-132.
65. Rönnberg, N., Rudner, M., Lunner, T., et al. (2014b). Memory performance on the Auditory Inference Span Test is independent of background noise type for young adults with normal hearing at high speech intelligibility. Front Psychol, 5, 1490.
66. Rönnberg, N., Stenfelt, S., Rudner, M. (2011). Testing Listening Effort for Speech Comprehension Using the Individuals' Cognitive Spare Capacity. Audiol Res, 1, e22.
67. Rudner, M. & Lunner, T. (2013). Cognitive spare capacity as a window on hearing aid benefit. Semin Hear, 34, 298-307.
68. Rudner, M., & Lunner, T. (2014). Cognitive spare capacity and speech communication: A narrative overview. Biomed Res Int, 2014, 869726.
69. Rudner, M., Lunner, T., Behrens, T., et al. (2012). Working memory capacity may influence perceived effort during aided speech recognition in noise. J Am Acad Audiol, 23, 577-589.
70. Rudner, M., Mishra, S., Stenfelt, S., Lunner, T. & Rönnberg, J. (2016). Seeing the talker's face improves free recall of speech for young adults with normal hearing but not older adults with hearing loss. J Speech, Language, and Hearing Research.
71. Rudner, M., Rönnberg, J., Lunner, T. (2011). Working memory supports listening in noise for persons with hearing impairment. J Am Acad Audiol, 22, 156-167.
72. Rudner, M., Toscano, E., Holmer, E. (2015). Load and distinctness interact in working memory for lexical manual gestures. Front Psychol, 6, 1147.
73. 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.
74. Scott, S. K., & McGettigan, C. (2013). The neural processing of masked speech. Hear Res, 303, 58-66.
75. Smeds, K., Wolters, F., Rung, M. (2015). Estimation of Signal-to-Noise Ratios in Realistic Sound Scenarios. J Am Acad Audiol, 26, 183-196.
76. Smith, S., Pichora-Fuller, M.K., Wilson, R., & Alexander, G. (under revision). Development of the Word Auditory Recognition and Recall Measure (WARRM): A working memory test for use in rehabilitative audiology. Ear Hear.
77. Smith, S. L., & Pichora-Fuller, M. K. (2015). Associations between speech understanding and auditory and visual tests of verbal working memory: Effects of linguistic complexity, task, age, and hearing loss. Front Psychol, 6, 1394.
78. Sommers, M. S., & Phelps, D. (2016). The effects of adding visual speech information on measures of perceptual effort in young and older listeners. Ear Hear, 37, 62S-68S.
79. Sommers, M. S., Tye-Murray, N., Spehar, B. (2005). Auditory-visual speech perception and auditory-visual enhancement in normal-hearing younger and older adults. Ear Hear, 26, 263-275.
80. Souza, P. E., Arehart, K. H., Shen, J., et al. (2015). Working memory and intelligibility of hearing-aid processed speech. Front Psychol, 6, 526.
81. Wang, D., Kjems, U., Pedersen, M. S., et al. (2009). Speech intelligibility in background noise with ideal binary time-frequency masking. J Acoust Soc Am, 125, 2336-2347.
82. Wingfield, A. (2014). Commentary on McGarrigle et al. Listening effort and fatigue: What exactly are we measuring? A British Society of Audiology Cognition in Hearing Special Interest Group 'white paper'. International Journal of Audiology; Early Online: 1-13.
83. Zekveld, A. A., Heslenfeld, D. J., Johnsrude, I. S., et al. (2014). The eye as a window to the listening brain: Neural correlates of pupil size as a measure of cognitive listening load. Neuroimage, 101, 76-86.
84. 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.
85. Zekveld, A. A., Rudner, M., Johnsrude, I. S., et al. (2011). The influence of semantically related and unrelated text cues on the intelligibility of sentences in noise. Ear Hear, 32, e16-e25.