The signal-cognition interface: interactions between degraded auditory signals and cognitive processes.

A hearing loss leads to problems with speech perception; this is exacerbated when competing noise is present. The speech signal is recognized by the cognitive system of the listener; noise and distortion tax the cognitive system when interpreting it. The auditory system must interact with the cognitive system for optimal signal decoding. This article discusses this interaction between the signal and cognitive system based on two models: an auditory model describing signal transmission and degeneration due to a hearing loss and a cognitive model for Ease of Language Understanding. The signal distortion depends on the specifics of the hearing impairment and thus differently distorted signals can affect the cognitive system in different ways. Consequently, the severity of a hearing loss may not only depend on the lesion itself but also on the cognitive recourses required to interpret the signal.

[1]  B. Lidestam.  Visual discrimination of vowel duration. , 2009, Scandinavian journal of psychology.

[2]  Thomas Lunner,et al.  Cognition and hearing aids. , 2009, Scandinavian journal of psychology.

[3]  E. T. Auer.  Spoken word recognition by eye. , 2009, Scandinavian journal of psychology.

[4]  T. Lunner,et al.  Cognition and aided speech recognition in noise: specific role for cognitive factors following nine-week experience with adjusted compression settings in hearing aids. , 2009, Scandinavian journal of psychology.

[5]  J. Obleser,et al.  Pre-lexical abstraction of speech in the auditory cortex , 2009, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[6]  Mounya Elhilali,et al.  A cocktail party with a cortical twist: how cortical mechanisms contribute to sound segregation. , 2008, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[7]  Mark D'Esposito,et al.  Repetition Suppression and Reactivation in Auditory–Verbal Short-Term Recognition Memory , 2008, Cerebral cortex.

[8]  Ruth Campbell,et al.  The processing of audio-visual speech: empirical and neural bases , 2008, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[9]  Roy D Patterson,et al.  Functional imaging of the auditory processing applied to speech sounds , 2008, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[10]  D. Poeppel,et al.  Speech perception at the interface of neurobiology and linguistics , 2008, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[11]  Jerker Rönnberg,et al.  The role of the episodic buffer in working memory for language processing , 2008, Cognitive Processing.

[12]  Nima Mesgarani,et al.  Phoneme representation and classification in primary auditory cortex. , 2008, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[13]  R. Näätänen.  Mismatch negativity (MMN) as an index of central auditory system plasticity , 2008, International journal of audiology.

[14]  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.

[15]  S. Stenfelt.  Towards understanding the specifics of cochlear hearing loss: A modelling approach , 2008, International journal of audiology.

[16]  T. Lunner,et al.  Phonological mismatch and explicit cognitive processing in a sample of 102 hearing-aid users , 2008, International journal of audiology.

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

[18]  L. Nyberg,et al.  Neural representation of binding lexical signs and words in the episodic buffer of working memory , 2007, Neuropsychologia.

[19]  L. Bernstein,et al.  Enhanced visual speech perception in individuals with early-onset hearing impairment. , 2007, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[20]  Jae Hee Lee,et al.  Contribution of consonant versus vowel information to sentence intelligibility for young normal-hearing and elderly hearing-impaired listeners. , 2007, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[21]  F. Craik.  The role of cognition in age-related hearing loss. , 2007, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[22]  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.

[23]  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.

[24]  Tammo Houtgast,et al.  The development of the text reception threshold test: a visual analogue of the speech reception threshold test. , 2007, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[25]  Brent Edwards,et al.  The Future of Hearing Aid Technology , 2007, Trends in amplification.

[26]  Ewen MacDonald,et al.  Temporal jitter disrupts speech intelligibility: A simulation of auditory aging , 2007, Hearing Research.

[27]  A. Wingfield,et al.  Language and the aging brain: patterns of neural compensation revealed by functional brain imaging. , 2006, Journal of neurophysiology.

[28]  Ray Meddis,et al.  Auditory-nerve first-spike latency and auditory absolute threshold: a computer model. , 2006, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[29]  Tammo Houtgast,et al.  Occupational performance: Comparing normally-hearing and hearing-impaired employees using the Amsterdam Checklist for Hearing and Work , 2006, International journal of audiology.

[30]  S. Scollie,et al.  The Desired Sensation Level Multistage Input/Output Algorithm , 2005, Trends in amplification.

[31]  Brian C J Moore,et al.  New Version of the TEN Test With Calibrations in dB HL , 2004, Ear and hearing.

[32]  P. Tallal.  Improving language and literacy is a matter of time , 2004, Nature Reviews Neuroscience.

[33]  Jerker Rönnberg,et al.  Neural correlates of working memory for sign language. , 2004, Brain research. Cognitive brain research.

[34]  R. A. Schmiedt,et al.  Metabolic Presbycusis: Differential Changes in Auditory Brainstem and Otoacoustic Emission Responses with Chronic Furosemide Application in the Gerbil , 2004, Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology.

[35]  Andrew J Oxenham,et al.  Correct tonotopic representation is necessary for complex pitch perception. , 2004, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[36]  Stefan Stenfelt,et al.  Three-Dimensional Stapes Footplate Motion in Human Temporal Bones , 2003, Audiology and Neurotology.

[37]  S. Scott,et al.  The neuroanatomical and functional organization of speech perception , 2003, Trends in Neurosciences.

[38]  M. Sachs,et al.  An auditory-periphery model of the effects of acoustic trauma on auditory nerve responses. , 2003, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[39]  M. Kathleen Pichora-Fuller,et al.  Processing speed and timing in aging adults: psychoacoustics, speech perception, and comprehension , 2003 .

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

[41]  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.

[42]  R. A. Schmiedt,et al.  Effects of Furosemide Applied Chronically to the Round Window: A Model of Metabolic Presbyacusis , 2002, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[43]  Ulf Andersson,et al.  Deterioration of the phonological processing skills in adults with an acquired severe hearing loss , 2002 .

[44]  B. Moore,et al.  Effects of low pass filtering on the intelligibility of speech in noise for people with and without dead regions at high frequencies. , 2001, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[45]  L. Robles,et al.  Mechanics of the mammalian cochlea. , 2001, Physiological reviews.

[46]  B. Moore.  Dead Regions in the Cochlea: Diagnosis, Perceptual Consequences, and Implications for the Fitting of Hearing Aids , 2001, Trends in amplification.

[47]  M. Daneman,et al.  A new tool for measuring and understanding individual differences in the component processes of reading comprehension , 2001 .

[48]  G Keidser,et al.  NAL-NL1 procedure for fitting nonlinear hearing aids: characteristics and comparisons with other procedures. , 2001, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[49]  J. Risberg,et al.  The cognitive neuroscience of signed language. , 2000, Acta psychologica.

[50]  A. Baddeley.  The episodic buffer: a new component of working memory? , 2000, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[51]  B C Moore,et al.  Inter-relationship between different psychoacoustic measures assumed to be related to the cochlear active mechanism. , 1999, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[52]  D. Pisoni,et al.  Recognizing Spoken Words: The Neighborhood Activation Model , 1998, Ear and hearing.

[53]  J Rönnberg,et al.  Signed and spoken language perception studied by positron emission tomography , 1997, Neurology.

[54]  E. Boer.  Classical and non-classical models of the cochlea. , 1997, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[55]  P Dallos,et al.  Stereocilia displacement induced somatic motility of cochlear outer hair cells. , 1993, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[56]  Dianne J. Van Tasell,et al.  Hearing Loss, Speech, and Hearing Aids , 1993 .

[57]  H. Schuknecht,et al.  Cochlear Pathology in Presbycusis , 1993, The Annals of otology, rhinology, and laryngology.

[58]  J. Rönnberg,et al.  Visual speech processing: word-decoding and word-discrimination related to sentence-based speechreading and hearing-impairment. , 1991, Scandinavian journal of psychology.

[59]  U Rosenhall,et al.  Presbycusis and noise-induced hearing loss. , 1990, Ear and hearing.

[60]  Brian R Glasberg,et al.  Derivation of auditory filter shapes from notched-noise data , 1990, Hearing Research.

[61]  Jerker Rönnberg,et al.  Cognitive and communicative function : The effects of chronological age and "handicap age" , 1990 .

[62]  R Meddis,et al.  Simulation of auditory-neural transduction: further studies. , 1988, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[63]  B. Moore,et al.  Gap detection and masking in hearing-impaired and normal-hearing subjects. , 1987, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[64]  W. Marslen-Wilson.  Functional parallelism in spoken word-recognition , 1987, Cognition.

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

[66]  Richard F. Lyon,et al.  A computational model of filtering, detection, and compression in the cochlea , 1982, ICASSP.

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

[68]  F Grosjean,et al.  Spoken word recognition processes and the gating paradigm , 1980, Perception & psychophysics.

[69]  N. Viemeister.  Temporal modulation transfer functions based upon modulation thresholds. , 1979, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[70]  E. Shaw.  Transformation of sound pressure level from the free field to the eardrum in the horizontal plane. , 1974, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[71]  T. Lunner,et al.  Good cognitive resources make listening under challenging conditions seem less effortful. , 2009 .

[72]  M. Kathleen Pichora-Fuller,et al.  Use of supportive context by younger and older adult listeners: Balancing bottom-up and top-down information processing , 2008 .

[73]  P. Tallal,et al.  Generalization of non-linguistic auditory perceptual training to syllable discrimination. , 2007, Restorative neurology and neuroscience.

[74]  Lee M. Miller,et al.  Spectrotemporal receptive fields in the lemniscal auditory thalamus and cortex. , 2002, Journal of neurophysiology.

[75]  L. Carney,et al.  A model for the responses of low-frequency auditory-nerve fibers in cat. , 1993, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[76]  R. Patterson,et al.  Complex Sounds and Auditory Images , 1992 .

[77]  B. Moore,et al.  Psychoacoustic abilities of subjects with unilateral and bilateral cochlear hearing impairments and their relationship to the ability to understand speech. , 1989, Scandinavian audiology. Supplementum.

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