On the (un)importance of working memory in speech-in-noise processing for listeners with normal hearing thresholds

Frontiers in Psychology

Volumn 7, Issue AUG, 2016, Pages

  Füllgrabe, Christian ^a   Rosen, Stuart ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NOTTINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Aging; Hearing loss; Normal hearing; Reading span test; Sentence identification; Speech perception in noise; Supra threshold auditory processing; Working memory

Indexed keywords

EID: 84988359077     PISSN: None     EISSN: 16641078     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01268     Document Type: Article

References (72)

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. doi: 10.1080/14992020802301142
2. Andersson, U. (2002). Deterioration of the phonological processing skills in adults with an acquired severe hearing loss. Eur. J. Cogn. Psychol. 14, 335-352. doi: 10.1080/09541440143000096
3. Arlinger, S., Lunner, T., Lyxell, B., and Pichora-Fuller, M. K. (2009). The emergence of cognitive hearing science. Scand. J. Psychol. 50, 371-384. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9450.2009.00753.x
4. 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
5. Banks, B., Gowen, E., Munro, K. J., and Adank, P. (2015). Cognitive predictors of perceptual adaptation to accented speech. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 137, 2015-2024. doi: 10.1121/1.4916265
6. Barrouillet, P. (1996). Transitive inferences from set-inclusion relations and working memory. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. 22, 1408-1422. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.22.6.1408
7. Benard, M. R., Mensink, J. S., and Baskent, D. (2014). Individual differences in top-down restoration of interrupted speech: links to linguistic and cognitive abilities. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 135, EL88-EL94. doi: 10.1121/1.4862879
8. 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
9. 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)
10. Bharadwaj, H. M., Verhulst, S., Shaheen, L., Liberman, M. C., and Shinn-Cunningham, B. G. (2014). Cochlear neuropathy and the coding of supra-threshold sound. Front. Syst. Neurosci. 8:26. doi: 10.3389/fnsys.2014.00026
11. Caplan, D., and Waters, G. S. (1999). Verbal working memory and sentence comprehension. Behav. Brain Sci. 22, 77-94.
12. Carroll, R., Warzybok, A., Kollmeier, B., and Ruigendijk, E. (2016). Age-related differences in lexical access relate to speech recognition in noise. Front. Psychol. 7:990. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00990.
13. Classon, E. (2013). Representing Sounds and Spellings: Phonological Decline and Compensatory Working Memory in Acquired Hearing Impairment. Ph. D. thesis, LiU Tryck, Linköping.
14. Classon, E., Rudner, M., and Rönnberg, J. (2013). Working memory compensates for hearing related phonological processing deficit. J. Commun. Disord. 46, 17-29. doi: 10.1016/j.jcomdis.2012.10.001
15. Daneman, M., and Carpenter, P. A. (1980). Individual-differences in working memory and reading. J. Verbal Learn. Verbal Behav. 19, 450-466. doi: 10.1016/S0022-5371(80)90312-6
16. Daneman, M., and Merikle, P. M. (1996). Working memory and language comprehension: a meta-analysis. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 3, 422-433. doi: 10.3758/BF03214546
17. Das-Smaal, E. A., De Jong, P. F., and Koopmans, J. R. (1993). Working memory, attentional regulation and the Star Counting Test. Pers. Individ. Dif. 14, 815-824. doi: 10.1016/0191-8869(93)90094-J
18. Ellis, R. J., and Munro, K. J. (2013). Does cognitive function predict frequency compressed speech recognition in listeners with normal hearing and normal cognition? Int. J. Audiol. 52, 14-22. doi: 10.3109/14992027.2012.721013
19. Fedorenko, E. (2014). The role of domain-general cognitive control in language comprehension. Front. Psychol. 5:335. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00335
20. Foo, C., Rudner, M., Rönnberg, J., and Lunner, T. (2007). Recognition of speech in noise with new hearing instrument compression release settings requires explicit cognitive storage and processing capacity. J. Am. Acad. Audiol. 18, 618-631. doi: 10.3766/jaaa.18.7.8
21. Füllgrabe, C. (2013). Age-dependent changes in temporal-fine-structure processing in the absence of peripheral hearing loss. Am. J. Audiol. 22, 313-315. doi: 10.1044/1059-0889(2013/12-0070)
22. Füllgrabe, C., Meyer, B., and Lorenzi, C. (2003). Effect of cochlear damage on the detection of complex temporal envelopes. Hear. Res. 178, 35-43. doi: 10.1016/S0378-5955(03)00027-3
23. Füllgrabe, C., Moore, B. C. J., Demany, L., Ewert, S. D., Sheft, S., and Lorenzi, C. (2005). Modulation masking produced by second-order modulators. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 117, 2158-2168. doi: 10.1121/1.1861892
24. Füllgrabe, C., Moore, B. C. J., and Stone, M. A. (2015). Age-group differences in speech identification despite matched audiometrically normal hearing: contributions from auditory temporal processing and cognition. Front. Aging Neurosci. 6:347. doi: 10.3389/fnagi.2014.00347
25. Füllgrabe, C., and Rosen, S. (2016). "Investigating the role of working memory in speech-in-noise identification for listeners with normal hearing," in Physiology, Psychoacoustics and Cognition in Normal and Impaired Hearing, eds P. Van Dijk, D. Baskent, E. Gaudrain, E. De Kleine, A. Wagner, and C. Lanting (New York, NY: Springer International Publishing), 29-36.
26. Hagerman, B. (1982). Sentences for testing speech intelligibility in noise. Scand. Audiol. 11, 79-87. doi: 10.3109/01050398209076203
27. Hällgren, M., Larsby, B., and Arlinger, S. (2006). A Swedish version of the Hearing In Noise Test (HINT) for measurement of speech recognition. Int. J. Audiol. 45, 227-237. doi: 10.1080/14992020500429583
28. Heald, S. L., and Nusbaum, H. C. (2014). Speech perception as an active cognitive process. Front. Syst. Neurosci. 8:35. doi: 10.3389/fnsys.2014.00035
29. Heinrich, A., and Knight, S. (2016). "The contribution of auditory and cognitive factors to intelligibility of words and sentences in noise," in Physiology, Psychoacoustics and Cognition in Normal and Impaired Hearing, eds P. Van Dijk, D. Baskent, E. Gaudrain, E. De Kleine, A. Wagner, and C. Lanting (New York, NY: Springer International Publishing), 37-45.
30. Henry, K. S., and Heinz, M. G. (2013). Effects of sensorineural hearing loss on temporal coding of narrowband and broadband signals in the auditory periphery. Hear. Res. 303, 39-47. doi: 10.1016/j.heares.2013.01.014
31. Keidser, G., Best, V., Freeston, K., and Boyce, A. (2015). Cognitive spare capacity: evaluation data and its association with comprehension of dynamic conversations Front. Psychol. 6:597. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00597
32. Killion, M. C., Niquette, P. A., Gudmundsen, G. I., Revit, L. J., and Banerjee, S. (2004). Development of a quick speech-in-noise test for measuring signal-to-noise ratio loss in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 116, 2395-2405. doi: 10.1121/1.1784440
33. Klein, K., and Boals, A. (2001). The relationship of life event stress and working memory capacity. Appl. Cogn. Psychol. 15, 565-579. doi: 10.1002/Acp.727
34. Koelewijn, T., Zekveld, A. A., Festen, J. M., Rönnberg, J., and Kramer, S. E. (2012). Processing load induced by informational masking is related to linguistic abilities. Int. J. Otolaryngol. 2012:865731. doi: 10.1155/2012/865731
35. Kollmeier, B., and Wesselkamp, M. (1997). Development and evaluation of a German sentence test for objective and subjective speech intelligibility assessment. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 102, 2412-2421. doi: 10.1121/1.419624
36. Kuik, A. M. (2012). Speech Reception in Noise: On Auditory and Cognitive Aspects, Gender Differences and Normative Data for the Normal-Hearing Population Under the Age of 40. Bachelor's thesis, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam.
37. Larsby, B., Hällgren, M., and Lyxell, B. (2008). The interference of different background noises on speech processing in elderly hearing impaired subjects. Int. J. Audiol. 47(Suppl. 2), S83-S90. doi: 10.1080/14992020802301159
38. Larsby, B., Hällgren, M., and Lyxell, B. (2012). "Working memory capacity and lexica l access in speech recognition in noise," in Proceedings of the 3rd International Symposium on Auditory and Audiological Research (ISAAR 2011): Speech Perception and Auditory Disorders (Ballerup: The Danavox Jubilee Foundation), 95-102.
39. Lopez-Poveda, E. A. (2014). Why do I hear but not understand? Stochastic undersampling as a model of degraded neural encoding of speech. Front. Neurosci. 8:348. doi: 10.3389/fnins.2014.00348
40. Lunner, T. (2003). Cognitive function in relation to hearing aid use. Int. J. Audiol. 42(Suppl. 1), S49-S58. doi: 10.3109/14992020309074624
41. Lunner, T., and Sundewall-Thorén, E. (2007). Interactions between cognition, compression, and listening conditions: effects on speech-in-noise performance in a two-channel hearing aid. J. Am. Acad. Audiol. 18, 604-617. doi: 10.3766/jaaa.18.7.7
42. MacLeod, A., and 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. doi: 10.3109/03005369009077840
43. Mattys, S. L., Davis, M. H., Bradlow, A. R., and Scott, S. K. (2012). Speech recognition in adverse conditions: a review. Lang. Cogn. Process. 27, 953-978. doi: 10.1080/01690965.2012.705006
44. Miyake, A., Friedman, N. P., Emerson, M. J., Witzki, A. H., Howerter, A., and Wager, T. D. (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. doi: 10.1006/cogp.1999.0734
45. Moradi, S., Lidestam, B., Saremi, A., and Rönnberg, J. (2014). Gated auditory speech perception: effects of listening conditions and cognitive capacity. Front. Psychol. 5:531. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00531
46. Nagaraj, N. K., and Knapp, A. N. (2015). No evidence of relation between working memory and perception of interrupted speech in young adults. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 138, EL145-E150. doi: 10.1121/1.4927635
47. Nilsson, M., Soli, S. D., and Sullivan, J. A. (1994). Development of the Hearing in Noise Test for the measurement of speech reception thresholds in quiet and in noise. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 95, 1085-1099. doi: 10.1121/1.408469
48. 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(Suppl. 1), S68-S76. doi: 10.3109/14992020309074626
49. 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. doi: 10.1044/jshr.3204.725
50. Rönnberg, J., Lunner, T., Zekveld, 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
51. Rönnberg, J., Rudner, M., Lunner, T., and Zekveld, A. A. (2010). When cognition kicks in: working memory and speech understanding in noise. Noise Health 12, 263-269. doi: 10.4103/1463-1741.70505
52. Rothauser, E. H., Chapman, W. D., Guttman, N., Hecker, M. H. L., Nordby, K. S., Silbiger, H. R., et al. (1969). IEEE recommended practice for speech quality measurements. IEEE Trans. Audio Electroacoust. 17, 225-246.
53. Rudner, M., Foo, C., Rönnberg, J., and 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. Scand. J. Psychol. 50, 405-418. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9450.2009.00745.x
54. Rudner, M., Foo, C., Sundewall-Thorén, E., Lunner, T., and 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. doi: 10.1080/14992020802304393
55. Rudner, M., Rönnberg, J., and Lunner, T. (2011). Working memory supports listening in noise for persons with hearing impairment. J. Am. Acad. Audiol. 22, 156-167. doi: 10.3766/jaaa.22.3.4
56. Schneider, B. A., and Pichora-Fuller, M. K. (2001). Age-related changes in temporal processing: implications for speech perception. Sem. Hear. 22, 227-240. doi: 10.1055/s-2001-15628
57. Schoof, T., and Rosen, S. (2014). The role of auditory and cognitive factors in understanding speech in noise by normal-hearing older listeners. Front. Aging Neurosci. 6:307. doi: 10.3389/fnagi.2014.00307
58. Sergeyenko, Y., Lall, K., Liberman, M. C., and Kujawa, S. G. (2013). Age-related cochlear synaptopathy: an early-onset contributor to auditory functional decline. J. Neurosci. 33, 13686-13694. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1783-13.2013
59. Smith, S. L., and 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. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01394
60. 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
61. 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)
62. Souza, P. E., Arehart, K. H., Shen, J., Anderson, M., and Kates, J. M. (2015). Working memory and intelligibility of hearing-aid processed speech. Front. Psychol. 6:526. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00526
63. Stenbäck, V., Hällgren, M., and Larsby, B. (2016). Executive functions and working memory capacity in speech communication under adverse conditions. Speech Lang. Hear. 1-9. doi: 10.1080/2050571X.2016.1196034
64. Stenbäck, V., Hällgren, M., Lyxell, B., and Larsby, B. (2015). The Swedish Hayling task, and its relation to working memory, verbal ability, and speech-recognition-in-noise. Scand. J. Psychol. 56, 264-272. doi: 10.1111/sjop.12206
65. Stone, M. A., Füllgrabe, C., Mackinnon, R. C., and Moore, B. C. J. (2011). The importance for speech intelligibility of random fluctuations in "steady" background noise. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 130, 2874-2881. doi: 10.1121/1.3641371
66. Stone, M. A., Füllgrabe, C., and Moore, B. C. J. (2012). Notionally steady background noise acts primarily as a modulation masker of speech. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 132, 317-326. doi: 10.1121/1.4725766
67. Uslar, V. N., Carroll, R., Hanke, M., Hamann, C., Ruigendijk, E., Brand, T., et al. (2013). Development and evaluation of a linguistically and audiologically controlled sentence intelligibility test. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 134, 3039-3056. doi: 10.1121/1.4818760
68. 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
69. Viechtbauer, W. (2010). Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. J. Stat. Softw. 36, 1-48. doi: 10.18637/jss.v036.i03
70. 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. doi: 10.3813/AAA.918397
71. Zekveld, A. A., Rudner, M., Johnsrude, I. S., Festen, J. M., Van Beek, J. H., and Rönnberg, J. (2011). The influence of semantically related and unrelated text cues on the intelligibility of sentences in noise. Ear Hear. 32, e16-e25. doi: 10.1097/AUD.0b013e318228036a
72. Zekveld, A. A., Rudner, M., Kramer, S. E., Lyzenga, J., and Rönnberg, J. (2014). Cognitive processing load during listening is reduced more by decreasing voice similarity than by increasing spatial separation between target and masker speech. Front. Neurosci. 8:88. doi: 10.3389/fnins.2014.00088