Noise reduction improves memory for target language speech in competing native but not foreign language speech

Ear and Hearing

Volumn 36, Issue 1, 2015, Pages 82-91

  Ng, Elaine Hoi Ning ^a   Rudner, Mary ^a   Lunner, Thomas ^a,b,c   Rönnberg, Jerker ^a  

^a The Swedish Institute for Disability Research Linköping University   (Sweden)

^b OTICON A S   (Denmark)

^c LINKÖPING UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Competing speech; Free recall; Masker language; Noise reduction; Working memory

Indexed keywords

AGED; ALGORITHM; FEMALE; HEARING AID; HEARING LOSS, SENSORINEURAL; HUMAN; LANGUAGE; MALE; MEMORY; MIDDLE AGED; NOISE; PREVENTION AND CONTROL; PSYCHOLOGY; RECALL; RECOGNITION; SHORT TERM MEMORY; SPEECH PERCEPTION;

AGED; ALGORITHMS; FEMALE; HEARING AIDS; HEARING LOSS, SENSORINEURAL; HUMANS; LANGUAGE; MALE; MEMORY; MEMORY, SHORT-TERM; MENTAL RECALL; MIDDLE AGED; NOISE; RECOGNITION (PSYCHOLOGY); SPEECH PERCEPTION;

EID: 85027944986     PISSN: 01960202     EISSN: 15384667     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/AUD.0000000000000080     Document Type: Article

References (52)

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. Baddeley, A. D., Logie, R., Nimmo-Smith, I. (1985). Components of fluent reading. J Mem Lang, 24, 119-131.
3. Ben-David, B. M., Tse, V. Y., Schneider, B. A. (2012). Does it take older adults longer than younger adults to perceptually segregate a speech target from a background masker? Hear Res, 290, 55-63.
4. 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.
5. Boldt, J. B., Kjems, U., Pedersen, M. S., et al. (2008, 14-17 September). Estimation of the ideal binary mask using directional systems. Proceedings of the 11th International Workshop on Acoustic Echo and Noise Control, URL (consulted April 2013): http://www.iwaenc.org/proceedings/2008/contents/papers/9062.pdf.
6. Bradlow, A., Clopper, C., Smiljanic, R., et al. (2010). A Perceptual phonetic similarity space for languages: Evidence from Five Native Language Listener Groups. Speech Commun, 52, 930-942.
7. 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.
8. Brungart, D. S. (2001). Informational and energetic masking effects in the perception of two simultaneous talkers. J Acoust Soc Am, 109, 1101-1109.
9. Brungart, D. S., Chang, P. S., Simpson, B. D., et al. (2006). Isolating the energetic component of speech-on-speech masking with ideal time-frequency segregation. J Acoust Soc Am, 120, 4007-4018.
10. Byrne, D., Dillon, H., Tran, K., et al. (1994). An international comparison of long-term average speech spectra. J Acoust Soc Am, 96(4), 2108-2120.
11. 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.
12. Calandruccio, L., Dhar, S., Bradlow, A. R. (2010). Speech-on-speech masking with variable access to the linguistic content of the masker speech. J Acoust Soc Am, 128, 860-869.
13. Daneman, M., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). Individual differences in working memory and reading. J Verb Learn Verb Behav, 19(4), 450-466.
14. Festen, J. M., & Plomp, R. (1990). Effects of fluctuating noise and interfering speech on the speech-reception threshold for impaired and normal hearing. J Acoust Soc Am, 88, 1725-1736.
15. Foo, C., Rudner, M., Rönnberg, J., et al. (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.
16. Francis, A. L., & Nusbaum, H. C. (2009). Effects of intelligibility on working memory demand for speech perception. Atten Percept Psychophys, 71, 1360-1374.
17. Freyman, R. L., Balakrishnan, U., Helfer, K. S. (2004). Effect of number of masking talkers and auditory priming on informational masking in speech recognition. J Acoust Soc Am, 115(5 Pt 1), 2246-2256.
18. 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 Suppl 1, S77-S85.
19. Hall, J. W., III, Grose, J. H., Buss, E., et al. (2002). Spondee recognition in a two-talker masker and a speech-shaped noise masker in adults and children. Ear Hear, 23, 159-165.
20. Heinrich, A., & Schneider, B. A. (2011). Elucidating the effects of ageing on remembering perceptually distorted word pairs. Q J Exp Psychol (Hove), 64, 186-205.
21. Heinrich, A., Schneider, B. A., Craik, F. I. (2008). Investigating the influence of continuous babble on auditory short-term memory performance. Q J Exp Psychol (Hove), 61, 735-751.
22. 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.
23. Levitt, H. (1971). Transformed up-down methods in psychoacoustics. J Acoust Soc Am, 49 Suppl 2, 467.
24. Li, Y., & Wang, D. (2009). On the optimality of ideal binary time-frequency masks. Speech Comm, 51, 230-239.
25. Lunner, T. (2003). Cognitive function in relation to hearing aid use. Int J Audiol, 42 Suppl 1, S49-S58.
26. Lunner, T., Rudner, M., Rönnberg, J. (2009). Cognition and hearing aids. Scand J Psychol, 50, 395-403.
27. MATLAB and Statistics Toolbox Release (2012). The MathWorks, Inc., Natick, Massachusetts, USA.
28. Mattys, S. L., Brooks, J., Cooke, M. (2009). Recognizing speech under a processing load: Dissociating energetic from informational factors. Cogn Psychol, 59, 203-243.
29. 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.
30. Moore, B. C. (2008). The choice of compression speed in hearing aids: Theoretical and practical considerations and the role of individual differences. Trends Amplif, 12, 103-112.
31. Murphy, D. R., Craik, F. I., Li, K. Z., et al. (2000). Comparing the effects of aging and background noise on short-term memory performance. Psychol Aging, 15, 323-334.
32. 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.
33. 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; discussion 176.
34. Rhebergen, K. S., Versfeld, N. J., Dreschler, W. A. (2005). Release from informational masking by time reversal of native and non-native interfering speech. J Acoust Soc Am, 118(3 Pt 1), 1274-1277.
35. 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.
36. 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.
37. 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, 13. doi:10.3389/fnsys.2013.00031.
38. Rönnberg, J., Rudner, M., Foo, C., et al. (2008). Cognition counts: A working memory system for ease of language understanding (ELU). Int J Audiol, 47 Suppl 2, S99-S105.
39. 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.
40. 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.
41. Smeds, K., Wolters, F., Rung, M. (2012, August). Estimation of Realistic Signal-to-Noise Ratios. Unpublished paper presented at the International Hearing Aid Research Conference (IHCON) in Lake Tahoe, CA, USA.
42. Souza, P. E., & Turner, C. W. (1994). Masking of speech in young and elderly listeners with hearing loss. J Speech Hear Res, 37, 655-661.
43. Sörqvist, P., & 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.
44. Tun, P. A., McCoy, S., Wingfield, A. (2009). Aging, hearing acuity, and the attentional costs of effortful listening. Psychol Aging, 24, 761-766.
45. Tun, P. A., O'Kane, G., Wingfield, A. (2002). Distraction by competing speech in young and older adult listeners. Psychol Aging, 17, 453-467.
46. Unsworth, N. (2007). Individual differences in working memory capacity and episodic retrieval: Examining the dynamics of delayed and continuous distractor free recall. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn, 33, 1020-1034.
47. Unsworth, N., Brewer, G. A., Spillers, G. J. (2011). Inter-and intra-individual variation in immediate free recall: An examination of serial position functions and recall initiation strategies. Memory, 19, 67-82.
48. Unsworth, N., & Engle, R. W. (2007). The nature of individual differences in working memory capacity: Active maintenance in primary memory and controlled search from secondary memory. Psychol Rev, 114, 104-132.
49. Van Engen, K. J., & Bradlow, A. R. (2007). Sentence recognition in nativeand foreign-language multi-talker background noise. J Acoust Soc Am, 121, 519-526.
50. 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.
51. 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.
52. Zekveld, A. A., Rudner, M., Johnsrude, I. S., et al. (2013). The effects of working memory capacity and semantic cues on the intelligibility of speech in noise. J Acoust Soc Am, 134, 2225-2234.