Extrinsic Cognitive Load Impairs Spoken Word Recognition in High- and Low-Predictability Sentences

Objectives: Listening effort (LE) induced by speech degradation reduces performance on concurrent cognitive tasks. However, a converse effect of extrinsic cognitive load on recognition of spoken words in sentences has not been shown. The aims of the present study were to (a) examine the impact of extrinsic cognitive load on spoken word recognition in a sentence recognition task and (b) determine whether cognitive load and/or LE needed to understand spectrally degraded speech would differentially affect word recognition in high- and low-predictability sentences. Downstream effects of speech degradation and sentence predictability on the cognitive load task were also examined. Design: One hundred twenty young adults identified sentence-final spoken words in high- and low-predictability Speech Perception in Noise sentences. Cognitive load consisted of a preload of short (low-load) or long (high-load) sequences of digits, presented visually before each spoken sentence and reported either before or after identification of the sentence-final word. LE was varied by spectrally degrading sentences with four-, six-, or eight-channel noise vocoding. Level of spectral degradation and order of report (digits first or words first) were between-participants variables. Effects of cognitive load, sentence predictability, and speech degradation on accuracy of sentence-final word identification as well as recall of preload digit sequences were examined. Results: In addition to anticipated main effects of sentence predictability and spectral degradation on word recognition, we found an effect of cognitive load, such that words were identified more accurately under low load than high load. However, load differentially affected word identification in high- and low-predictability sentences depending on the level of sentence degradation. Under severe spectral degradation (four-channel vocoding), the effect of cognitive load on word identification was present for high-predictability sentences but not for low-predictability sentences. Under mild spectral degradation (eight-channel vocoding), the effect of load was present for low-predictability sentences but not for high-predictability sentences. There were also reliable downstream effects of speech degradation and sentence predictability on recall of the preload digit sequences. Long digit sequences were more easily recalled following spoken sentences that were less spectrally degraded. When digits were reported after identification of sentence-final words, short digit sequences were recalled more accurately when the spoken sentences were predictable. Conclusions: Extrinsic cognitive load can impair recognition of spectrally degraded spoken words in a sentence recognition task. Cognitive load affected word identification in both high- and low-predictability sentences, suggesting that load may impact both context use and lower-level perceptual processes. Consistent with prior work, LE also had downstream effects on memory for visual digit sequences. Results support the proposal that extrinsic cognitive load and LE induced by signal degradation both draw on a central, limited pool of cognitive resources that is used to recognize spoken words in sentences under adverse listening conditions.

[1]  Matthew H. Davis,et al.  Speech recognition in adverse conditions: A review , 2012 .

[2]  A. Boothroyd,et al.  Mathematical treatment of context effects in phoneme and word recognition. , 1988, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[3]  Cynthia G. Clopper,et al.  Effects of open-set and closed-set task demands on spoken word recognition. , 2006, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[4]  Jerker Rönnberg,et al.  The effects of working memory capacity and semantic cues on the intelligibility of speech in noise. , 2013, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[5]  Jerker Rönnberg,et al.  The Influence of Semantically Related and Unrelated Text Cues on the Intelligibility of Sentences in Noise , 2011, Ear and hearing.

[6]  Sandra Gordon-Salant,et al.  Effects of Age and Working Memory Capacity on Speech Recognition Performance in Noise Among Listeners With Normal Hearing , 2016, Ear and hearing.

[7]  S. Scott,et al.  Functional Integration across Brain Regions Improves Speech Perception under Adverse Listening Conditions , 2007, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[8]  Aimée M. Surprenant,et al.  The Effect of Noise on Memory for Spoken Syllables , 1999 .

[9]  A. Wingfield Evolution of Models of Working Memory and Cognitive Resources , 2016, Ear and hearing.

[10]  Sridhar Kalluri,et al.  Objective measures of listening effort: effects of background noise and noise reduction. , 2009, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[11]  P. Rabbitt Mild hearing loss can cause apparent memory failures which increase with age and reduce with IQ. , 1990, Acta oto-laryngologica. Supplementum.

[12]  A. Wingfield,et al.  Word Recognition Within a Linguistic Context: Effects of Age, Hearing Acuity, Verbal Ability, and Cognitive Function , 2012, Ear and hearing.

[13]  Alexander L. Francis,et al.  Improved segregation of simultaneous talkers differentially affects perceptual and cognitive capacity demands for recognizing speech in competing speech , 2010, Attention, perception & psychophysics.

[14]  P. Luce,et al.  Spoken Word Recognition: The Challenge of Variation , 2005 .

[15]  M. Akeroyd 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 , 2008, International journal of audiology.

[16]  M. D’Esposito Working memory. , 2008, Handbook of clinical neurology.

[17]  G. A. Miller,et al.  The intelligibility of speech as a function of the context of the test materials. , 1951, Journal of experimental psychology.

[18]  A. Zekveld,et al.  Pupil Dilation Uncovers Extra Listening Effort in the Presence of a Single-Talker Masker , 2012, Ear and hearing.

[19]  A. Jesse,et al.  Working Memory Affects Older Adults’ Use of Context in Spoken-Word Recognition , 2012, Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[20]  Thomas Lunner,et al.  Recognition of speech in noise with new hearing instrument compression release settings requires explicit cognitive storage and processing capacity. , 2007, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[21]  Alexander L. Francis,et al.  Effects of intelligibility on working memory demand for speech perception , 2009, Attention, perception & psychophysics.

[22]  Chad S. Rogers,et al.  Frequent false hearing by older adults: the role of age differences in metacognition. , 2012, Psychology and aging.

[23]  Ingrid S. Johnsrude,et al.  Behavioral and fMRI evidence that cognitive ability modulates the effect of semantic context on speech intelligibility , 2012, Brain and Language.

[24]  S. Mattys,et al.  Effects of cognitive load on speech recognition , 2011 .

[25]  T. Lunner,et al.  Cognition counts: A working memory system for ease of language understanding (ELU) , 2008, International journal of audiology.

[26]  Tina M. Grieco-Calub,et al.  Age-Related Differences in Listening Effort During Degraded Speech Recognition , 2017, Ear and hearing.

[27]  Matthew B. Winn,et al.  The Impact of Auditory Spectral Resolution on Listening Effort Revealed by Pupil Dilation , 2015, Ear and hearing.

[28]  Thomas Lunner,et al.  Interactions between cognition, compression, and listening conditions: effects on speech-in-noise performance in a two-channel hearing aid. , 2007, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[29]  John J. L. Morton,et al.  Interaction of information in word recognition. , 1969 .

[30]  A Wingfield,et al.  Cognitive factors in auditory performance: context, speed of processing, and constraints of memory. , 1996, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[31]  P. Carpenter,et al.  Individual differences in working memory and reading , 1980 .

[32]  P. Carpenter,et al.  Individual Differences in Integrating Information between and within Sentences. , 1983 .

[33]  U. Lemke,et al.  Cognitive Load and Listening Effort: Concepts and Age-Related Considerations , 2016, Ear and hearing.

[34]  James S. Magnuson,et al.  Spoken Word Recognition , 2013 .

[35]  Graham Naylor,et al.  Benefits from hearing aids in relation to the interaction between the user and the environment , 2003, International journal of audiology.

[36]  T. Lunner,et al.  The emergence of cognitive hearing science. , 2009, Scandinavian journal of psychology.

[37]  A. Samuel,et al.  Extrinsic cognitive load impairs low-level speech perception , 2014, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[38]  W. Ma,et al.  Changing concepts of working memory , 2014, Nature Neuroscience.

[39]  Christopher M. Conway,et al.  Deaf children with cochlear implants do not appear to use sentence context to help recognize spoken words. , 2014, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[40]  Joost M Festen,et al.  How Linguistic Closure and Verbal Working Memory Relate to Speech Recognition in Noise—A Review , 2013, Trends in amplification.

[41]  D. Broadbent CHAPTER 5 – THE EFFECTS OF NOISE ON BEHAVIOUR , 1958 .

[42]  S. Rosen,et al.  On The (Un)importance of Working Memory in Speech-in-Noise Processing for Listeners with Normal Hearing Thresholds , 2016, Front. Psychol..

[43]  Thomas Lunner,et al.  Working memory supports listening in noise for persons with hearing impairment. , 2011, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[44]  D B Pisoni,et al.  Some Considerations in Evaluating Spoken Word Recognition by Normal‐Hearing, Noise‐Masked Normal‐Hearing, and Cochlear Implant Listeners. I: The Effects of Response Format , 1997, Ear and hearing.

[45]  M. Sommers,et al.  Inhibitory processes and spoken word recognition in young and older adults: the interaction of lexical competition and semantic context. , 1999, Psychology and aging.

[46]  Arthur Wingfield,et al.  Hearing Loss and Perceptual Effort: Downstream Effects on Older Adults’ Memory for Speech , 2005, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[47]  Thomas Lunner,et al.  When cognition kicks in: working memory and speech understanding in noise. , 2010, Noise & health.

[48]  W. M. Rabinowitz,et al.  Standardization of a test of speech perception in noise. , 1979, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[49]  Richard D. Morey,et al.  Flexible attention allocation to visual and auditory working memory tasks: manipulating reward induces a trade-off , 2010, Attention, perception & psychophysics.

[50]  M. Daneman,et al.  How Age, Linguistic Status, and the Nature of the Auditory Scene Alter the Manner in Which Listening Comprehension Is Achieved in Multitalker Conversations. , 2015, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[51]  D. Başkent,et al.  Listening effort with cochlear implant simulations. , 2013, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[52]  J. Rönnberg Cognition in the hearing impaired and deaf as a bridge between signal and dialogue: a framework and a model , 2003, International journal of audiology.

[53]  D. Pisoni,et al.  Speech Perception and Spoken Word Recognition: Research and Theory , 2008 .

[54]  James M. McQueen,et al.  Eight questions about spoken-word recognition , 2007 .

[55]  A. Surprenant,et al.  Effects of Noise on Identification and Serial Recall of Nonsense Syllables in Older and Younger Adults , 2007, Neuropsychology, development, and cognition. Section B, Aging, neuropsychology and cognition.

[56]  S. Gordon-Salant,et al.  Selected cognitive factors and speech recognition performance among young and elderly listeners. , 1997, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[57]  M. Just,et al.  From the SelectedWorks of Marcel Adam Just 1992 A capacity theory of comprehension : Individual differences in working memory , 2017 .

[58]  M. Cooke,et al.  Recognizing speech under a processing load: Dissociating energetic from informational factors , 2009, Cognitive Psychology.

[59]  M. Walger,et al.  Effects of Hearing Loss and Cognitive Load on Speech Recognition with Competing Talkers , 2016, Front. Psychol..

[60]  T. Feustel,et al.  Capacity Demands in Short-Term Memory for Synthetic and .Natural Speech , 1983, Human factors.

[61]  I. Johnsrude,et al.  Working Memory Training and Speech in Noise Comprehension in Older Adults , 2016, Front. Aging Neurosci..

[62]  Rajka Smiljanic,et al.  Acoustic and semantic enhancements for children with cochlear implants. , 2013, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[63]  A. Wingfield,et al.  Hearing Impairment and Cognitive Energy: The Framework for Understanding Effortful Listening (FUEL) , 2016, Ear and hearing.

[64]  M. Daneman,et al.  How Spoken Language Comprehension is Achieved by Older Listeners in Difficult Listening Situations , 2016, Experimental aging research.

[65]  M. Daneman,et al.  How young and old adults listen to and remember speech in noise. , 1995, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[66]  Signy Sheldon,et al.  Priming and sentence context support listening to noise-vocoded speech by younger and older adults. , 2008, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[67]  Holger Mitterer,et al.  How does cognitive load influence speech perception? An encoding hypothesis , 2017, Attention, perception & psychophysics.

[68]  L L Elliott,et al.  Development of a test of speech intelligibility in noise using sentence materials with controlled word predictability. , 1977, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[69]  P. Rabbitt,et al.  Channel-Capacity, Intelligibility and Immediate Memory , 1968, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[70]  Thomas Lunner,et al.  Cognitive function in relation to hearing aid use , 2003, International journal of audiology.