Processing Load Induced by Informational Masking Is Related to Linguistic Abilities

It is often assumed that the benefit of hearing aids is not primarily reflected in better speech performance, but that it is reflected in less effortful listening in the aided than in the unaided condition. Before being able to assess such a hearing aid benefit the present study examined how processing load while listening to masked speech relates to inter-individual differences in cognitive abilities relevant for language processing. Pupil dilation was measured in thirty-two normal hearing participants while listening to sentences masked by fluctuating noise or interfering speech at either 50% and 84% intelligibility. Additionally, working memory capacity, inhibition of irrelevant information, and written text reception was tested. Pupil responses were larger during interfering speech as compared to fluctuating noise. This effect was independent of intelligibility level. Regression analysis revealed that high working memory capacity, better inhibition, and better text reception were related to better speech reception thresholds. Apart from a positive relation to speech recognition, better inhibition and better text reception are also positively related to larger pupil dilation in the single-talker masker conditions. We conclude that better cognitive abilities not only relate to better speech perception, but also partly explain higher processing load in complex listening conditions.

[1]  A. M. Mimpen,et al.  Improving the reliability of testing the speech reception threshold for sentences. , 1979, Audiology : official organ of the International Society of Audiology.

[2]  Tammo Houtgast,et al.  Measuring cognitive factors in speech comprehension: the value of using the Text Reception Threshold test as a visual equivalent of the SRT test. , 2009, Scandinavian journal of psychology.

[3]  A. Zekveld,et al.  Pupil Response as an Indication of Effortful Listening: The Influence of Sentence Intelligibility , 2010, Ear and hearing.

[4]  A. M. Mimpen,et al.  Speech-reception threshold for sentences as a function of age and noise level. , 1979, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[5]  Colin Humphries,et al.  Syntactic and Semantic Modulation of Neural Activity during Auditory Sentence Comprehension , 2006, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[6]  H. Levitt Transformed up-down methods in psychoacoustics. , 1971, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[7]  R. Plomp,et al.  Effects of fluctuating noise and interfering speech on the speech-reception threshold for impaired and normal hearing. , 1990, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[8]  J. Beatty Task-evoked pupillary responses, processing load, and the structure of processing resources. , 1982, Psychological bulletin.

[9]  Jerker Rönnberg,et al.  Episodic long-term memory of spoken discourse masked by speech: what is the role for working memory capacity? , 2012, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[10]  I L Bailey,et al.  The Design and Use of a New Near‐Vision Chart , 1980, American journal of optometry and physiological optics.

[11]  M. K. Pickora-Fuller Processing speed and timing in aging adults: psychoacoustics, speech perception, and comprehension. , 2003, International journal of audiology.

[12]  Elizabeth D. Hickman,et al.  Effect of age on binaural speech intelligibility in normal hearing adults , 2006, Speech Commun..

[13]  J. Theeuwes,et al.  Attention and the multiple stages of multisensory integration: A review of audiovisual studies. , 2010, Acta psychologica.

[14]  Robert H. Logie,et al.  Components of fluent reading , 1985 .

[15]  D Kahneman,et al.  Pupil Diameter and Load on Memory , 1966, Science.

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

[17]  Anna Piotrowska,et al.  Processing load during listening: The influence of task characteristics on the pupil response , 2013 .

[18]  T Houtgast,et al.  Method for the selection of sentence materials for efficient measurement of the speech reception threshold. , 1999, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

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

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

[21]  A. Zekveld,et al.  New measures of masked text recognition in relation to speech-in-noise perception and their associations with age and cognitive abilities. , 2012, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[22]  Patrik Sörqvist,et al.  A sub-process view of working memory capacity: Evidence from effects of speech on prose memory , 2010, Memory.

[23]  Graham Naylor,et al.  Linear and nonlinear hearing aid fittings – 2. Patterns of candidature , 2006, International journal of audiology.

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

[25]  Michael F. Bunting,et al.  Working memory span tasks: A methodological review and user’s guide , 2005, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

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

[27]  Richard P. Heitz,et al.  Effects of incentive on working memory capacity: behavioral and pupillometric data. , 2007, Psychophysiology.

[28]  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.

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

[30]  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.

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

[32]  D. Baguley,et al.  A vision for tinnitus research , 2003, International journal of audiology.

[33]  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.

[34]  J Hyönä,et al.  Pupil Dilation as a Measure of Processing Load in Simultaneous Interpretation and Other Language Tasks , 1995, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

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

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

[37]  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.

[38]  Gregory G. Brown,et al.  Brain activation and pupil response during covert performance of the Stroop Color Word task , 1999, Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society.

[39]  M. Kathleen Pichora-Fuller,et al.  Cognitive aging and auditory information processing , 2003, International journal of audiology.

[40]  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.

[41]  D. Talsma,et al.  Methods for the estimation and removal of artifacts and overlap in ERP data , 2004 .

[42]  L E Humes,et al.  Speech identification difficulties of hearing-impaired elderly persons: the contributions of auditory processing deficits. , 1991, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[43]  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.

[44]  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.

[45]  Mark S. Gilzenrat,et al.  Pupil diameter tracks changes in control state predicted by the adaptive gain theory of locus coeruleus function , 2010, Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience.

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

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

[48]  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.

[49]  T. Busey,et al.  Auditory speech recognition and visual text recognition in younger and older adults: similarities and differences between modalities and the effects of presentation rate. , 2007, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[50]  D. Kahneman,et al.  Attention and Effort , 1973 .

[51]  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.

[52]  K E Spens,et al.  Cognitive correlates of visual speech understanding in hearing-impaired individuals. , 2001, Journal of deaf studies and deaf education.

[53]  Tutut Herawan,et al.  Computational and mathematical methods in medicine. , 2006, Computational and mathematical methods in medicine.