Processing Mechanisms in Hearing-Impaired Listeners: Evidence from Reaction Times and Sentence Interpretation

Objective: The authors aimed to determine whether hearing impairment affects sentence comprehension beyond phoneme or word recognition (i.e., on the sentence level), and to distinguish grammatically induced processing difficulties in structurally complex sentences from perceptual difficulties associated with listening to degraded speech. Effects of hearing impairment or speech in noise were expected to reflect hearer-specific speech recognition difficulties. Any additional processing time caused by the sustained perceptual challenges across the sentence may either be independent of or interact with top-down processing mechanisms associated with grammatical sentence structure. Design: Forty-nine participants listened to canonical subject-initial or noncanonical object-initial sentences that were presented either in quiet or in noise. Twenty-four participants had mild-to-moderate hearing impairment and received hearing-loss-specific amplification. Twenty-five participants were age-matched peers with normal hearing status. Reaction times were measured on-line at syntactically critical processing points as well as two control points to capture differences in processing mechanisms. An off-line comprehension task served as an additional indicator of sentence (mis)interpretation, and enforced syntactic processing. Results: The authors found general effects of hearing impairment and speech in noise that negatively affected perceptual processing, and an effect of word order, where complex grammar locally caused processing difficulties for the noncanonical sentence structure. Listeners with hearing impairment were hardly affected by noise at the beginning of the sentence, but were affected markedly toward the end of the sentence, indicating a sustained perceptual effect of speech recognition. Comprehension of sentences with noncanonical word order was negatively affected by degraded signals even after sentence presentation. Conclusion: Hearing impairment adds perceptual processing load during sentence processing, but affects grammatical processing beyond the word level to the same degree as in normal hearing, with minor differences in processing mechanisms. The data contribute to our understanding of individual differences in speech perception and language understanding. The authors interpret their results within the ease of language understanding model.

[1]  Arthur Wingfield,et al.  Effects of adult aging and hearing loss on comprehension of rapid speech varying in syntactic complexity. , 2006, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[2]  Esther Janse,et al.  Processing of fast speech by elderly listeners. , 2009, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[3]  Tammo Houtgast,et al.  Auditory and nonauditory factors affecting speech reception in noise by older listeners. , 2007, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[4]  A. Zekveld,et al.  Cognitive Load During Speech Perception in Noise: The Influence of Age, Hearing Loss, and Cognition on the Pupil Response , 2011, Ear and hearing.

[5]  S. Soli,et al.  Development of the Hearing in Noise Test for the measurement of speech reception thresholds in quiet and in noise. , 1994, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[6]  Josef Bayer,et al.  Case and Linking in Language Comprehension: Evidence from German , 2006 .

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

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

[9]  Angela D. Friederici,et al.  Syntactic parsing and working memory: The effects of syntactic complexity, reading span, and concurrent load , 2001 .

[10]  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.

[11]  Esther Ruigendijk,et al.  The Effects of Syntactic Complexity on Processing Sentences in Noise , 2013, Journal of psycholinguistic research.

[12]  Elisabeth Dévière,et al.  Analyzing linguistic data: a practical introduction to statistics using R , 2009 .

[13]  F. Donders,et al.  Over de snelheid van psychische Processen , 1868 .

[14]  Jerker Rönnberg,et al.  Gated Auditory Speech Perception in Elderly Hearing Aid Users and Elderly Normal-Hearing Individuals: Effects of Hearing Impairment and Cognitive Capacity , 2014, Trends in hearing.

[15]  B. Hornsby The Effects of Hearing Aid Use on Listening Effort and Mental Fatigue Associated With Sustained Speech Processing Demands , 2013, Ear and hearing.

[16]  R. Harald Baayen,et al.  The Myth of Cognitive Decline: Non-Linear Dynamics of Lifelong Learning , 2014, Top. Cogn. Sci..

[17]  J M Festen,et al.  Assessing aspects of auditory handicap by means of pupil dilatation. , 1997, Audiology : official organ of the International Society of Audiology.

[18]  Ewen N. MacDonald,et al.  Word Recognition for Temporally and Spectrally Distorted Materials: The Effects of Age and Hearing Loss , 2012, Ear and hearing.

[19]  Lyn Frazier,et al.  Sentence processing: A tutorial review. , 1987 .

[20]  Birger Kollmeier,et al.  Development and evaluation of a linguistically and audiologically controlled sentence intelligibility test. , 2013, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[21]  A. Wingfield,et al.  Cognitive aging and hearing acuity: modeling spoken language comprehension , 2015, Front. Psychol..

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

[23]  Birger Kollmeier,et al.  How Hearing Impairment Affects Sentence Comprehension: Using Eye Fixations to Investigate the Duration of Speech Processing , 2015, Trends in hearing.

[24]  S Gatehouse,et al.  Response times to speech stimuli as measures of benefit from amplification. , 1990, British journal of audiology.

[25]  L. Humes,et al.  Reconstructing Wholes From Parts: Effects of Modality, Age, and Hearing Loss on Word Recognition , 2013, Ear and hearing.

[26]  A. Wingfield,et al.  Neural processing during older adults' comprehension of spoken sentences: age differences in resource allocation and connectivity. , 2010, Cerebral cortex.

[27]  H. Dillon,et al.  The National Acoustic Laboratories' (NAL) New Procedure for Selecting the Gain and Frequency Response of a Hearing Aid , 1986, Ear and hearing.

[28]  Erin M Picou,et al.  The Effect of Changing the Secondary Task in Dual-Task Paradigms for Measuring Listening Effort , 2014, Ear and hearing.

[29]  James L. McClelland,et al.  The TRACE model of speech perception , 1986, Cognitive Psychology.

[30]  Birger Kollmeier,et al.  Efficient adaptive procedures for threshold and concurrent slope estimates for psychophysics and speech intelligibility tests. , 2002, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[31]  Erin M Picou,et al.  How Hearing Aids, Background Noise, and Visual Cues Influence Objective Listening Effort , 2013, Ear and hearing.

[32]  A. Stewart,et al.  Listening effort and fatigue: What exactly are we measuring? A British Society of Audiology Cognition in Hearing Special Interest Group ‘white paper’ , 2014, International journal of audiology.

[33]  D. Downs Effects of hearing and use on speech discrimination and listening effort. , 1982, Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders.

[34]  H. Akaike A new look at the statistical model identification , 1974 .

[35]  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.

[36]  A. Wingfield,et al.  Cognitive supports and cognitive constraints on comprehension of spoken language. , 2007, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[37]  Douglas L. Hintzman,et al.  "Schema Abstraction" in a Multiple-Trace Memory Model , 1986 .

[38]  Arthur Wingfield,et al.  Response latencies in auditory sentence comprehension: effects of linguistic versus perceptual challenge. , 2010, Psychology and aging.

[39]  A. Jensen,et al.  The theory of intelligence and its measurement , 2011 .

[40]  A. Welford Choice reaction time: Basic concepts , 1980 .

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

[42]  IEEE Recommended Practice for Speech Quality Measurements , 1969, IEEE Transactions on Audio and Electroacoustics.

[43]  Amos Paran Bottom-up and Top-down processing , 1997 .

[44]  Paul Miller,et al.  Effects of degraded sensory input on memory for speech: Behavioral data and a test of biologically constrained computational models , 2010, Brain Research.

[45]  R. Baayen,et al.  Analyzing Reaction Times , 2010 .

[46]  T. Lunner,et al.  The Ease of Language Understanding (ELU) model: theoretical, empirical, and clinical advances , 2013, Front. Syst. Neurosci..

[47]  Anna Warzybok,et al.  The multilingual matrix test: Principles, applications, and comparison across languages: A review , 2015, International journal of audiology.

[48]  T. Lunner,et al.  Working memory capacity may influence perceived effort during aided speech recognition in noise. , 2012, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[49]  A. Zekveld,et al.  The influence of informational masking on speech perception and pupil response in adults with hearing impairment. , 2014, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[50]  J Bamford,et al.  The BKB (Bamford-Kowal-Bench) sentence lists for partially-hearing children. , 1979, British journal of audiology.

[51]  Brigitte Röder,et al.  Parsing of Sentences in a Language with Varying Word Order: Word-by-Word Variations of Processing Demands Are Revealed by Event-Related Brain Potentials ☆ ☆☆ ★ , 1998 .

[52]  M. Kathleen Pichora-Fuller,et al.  Effects of aging on auditory processing of speech , 2003, International journal of audiology.

[53]  Mark Huckvale,et al.  Effect of noise reduction on reaction time to speech in noise , 2009, INTERSPEECH.

[54]  Executive Officer,et al.  National Acoustic Laboratories , 2005 .