Some factors underlying individual differences in speech recognition on PRESTO: a first report.

BACKGROUND Previous studies investigating speech recognition in adverse listening conditions have found extensive variability among individual listeners. However, little is currently known about the core underlying factors that influence speech recognition abilities. PURPOSE To investigate sensory, perceptual, and neurocognitive differences between good and poor listeners on the Perceptually Robust English Sentence Test Open-set (PRESTO), a new high-variability sentence recognition test under adverse listening conditions. RESEARCH DESIGN Participants who fell in the upper quartile (HiPRESTO listeners) or lower quartile (LoPRESTO listeners) on key word recognition on sentences from PRESTO in multitalker babble completed a battery of behavioral tasks and self-report questionnaires designed to investigate real-world hearing difficulties, indexical processing skills, and neurocognitive abilities. STUDY SAMPLE Young, normal-hearing adults (N = 40) from the Indiana University community participated in the current study. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Participants' assessment of their own real-world hearing difficulties was measured with a self-report questionnaire on situational hearing and hearing health history. Indexical processing skills were assessed using a talker discrimination task, a gender discrimination task, and a forced-choice regional dialect categorization task. Neurocognitive abilities were measured with the Auditory Digit Span Forward (verbal short-term memory) and Digit Span Backward (verbal working memory) tests, the Stroop Color and Word Test (attention/inhibition), the WordFam word familiarity test (vocabulary size), the Behavioral Rating Inventory of Executive Function-Adult Version (BRIEF-A) self-report questionnaire on executive function, and two performance subtests of the Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence (WASI) Performance Intelligence Quotient (IQ; nonverbal intelligence). Scores on self-report questionnaires and behavioral tasks were tallied and analyzed by listener group (HiPRESTO and LoPRESTO). RESULTS The extreme groups did not differ overall on self-reported hearing difficulties in real-world listening environments. However, an item-by-item analysis of questions revealed that LoPRESTO listeners reported significantly greater difficulty understanding speakers in a public place. HiPRESTO listeners were significantly more accurate than LoPRESTO listeners at gender discrimination and regional dialect categorization, but they did not differ on talker discrimination accuracy or response time, or gender discrimination response time. HiPRESTO listeners also had longer forward and backward digit spans, higher word familiarity ratings on the WordFam test, and lower (better) scores for three individual items on the BRIEF-A questionnaire related to cognitive load. The two groups did not differ on the Stroop Color and Word Test or either of the WASI performance IQ subtests. CONCLUSIONS HiPRESTO listeners and LoPRESTO listeners differed in indexical processing abilities, short-term and working memory capacity, vocabulary size, and some domains of executive functioning. These findings suggest that individual differences in the ability to encode and maintain highly detailed episodic information in speech may underlie the variability observed in speech recognition performance in adverse listening conditions using high-variability PRESTO sentences in multitalker babble.

[1]  D. Pisoni,et al.  Speech Perception as a Talker-Contingent Process , 1993, Psychological science.

[2]  Rachel A McArdle,et al.  An Evaluation of the BKB-SIN, HINT, QuickSIN, and WIN Materials on Listeners With Normal Hearing and Listeners With Hearing Loss. , 2007, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[3]  Randi C. Martin,et al.  A developmental study of the auditory stroop effect , 1988, Brain and Language.

[4]  P. Ptacek,et al.  Age recognition from voice. , 1966, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[5]  W. Ganong Phonetic categorization in auditory word perception. , 1980, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[6]  D B Pisoni,et al.  Lexical familiarity and processing efficiency: individual differences in naming, lexical decision, and semantic categorization. , 1993, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[7]  D. Pisoni,et al.  Recognition of spoken words by native and non-native listeners: talker-, listener-, and item-related factors. , 1999, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[8]  John O. Willis,et al.  Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence , 2014 .

[9]  D. Pisoni,et al.  Effects of stimulus variability on perception and representation of spoken words in memory , 1995, Perception & psychophysics.

[10]  N. Cowan Evolving conceptions of memory storage, selective attention, and their mutual constraints within the human information-processing system. , 1988, Psychological bulletin.

[11]  S. Goldinger,et al.  Episodic encoding of voice attributes and recognition memory for spoken words. , 1993, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[12]  Kristopher J Preacher,et al.  Use of the extreme groups approach: a critical reexamination and new recommendations. , 2005, Psychological methods.

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

[14]  J. Mullennix,et al.  Effects of talker variability on recall of spoken word lists. , 1989, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[15]  R. Barkley Behavioral inhibition, sustained attention, and executive functions: constructing a unifying theory of ADHD. , 1997, Psychological bulletin.

[16]  S. Jerger,et al.  Auditory stroop effects in children with hearing impairment. , 1993, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[17]  W. R. Garner The Processing of Information and Structure , 1974 .

[18]  J. Mullennix,et al.  Talker Variability in Speech Processing , 1997 .

[19]  Jody Kreiman,et al.  Foundations of Voice Studies: An Interdisciplinary Approach to Voice Production and Perception , 2011 .

[20]  M. Beckman,et al.  The interaction between vocabulary size and phonotactic probability effects on children's production accuracy and fluency in nonword repetition. , 2004, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[21]  A. Baddeley Working memory and language: an overview. , 2003, Journal of communication disorders.

[22]  A. Baddeley,et al.  The phonological loop as a language learning device. , 1998, Psychological review.

[23]  Kristin J. Van Engen,et al.  Sentence recognition in native- and foreign-language multi-talker background noise. , 2007, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[24]  C Alain,et al.  Selectively attending to auditory objects. , 2000, Frontiers in bioscience : a journal and virtual library.

[25]  Jacob Cohen The Cost of Dichotomization , 1983 .

[26]  René H. Gifford,et al.  Speech Recognition Materials and Ceiling Effects: Considerations for Cochlear Implant Programs , 2008, Audiology and Neurotology.

[27]  Robert Bayley,et al.  Language Variety in the South Revisited , 2014 .

[28]  D. Pisoni,et al.  Working Memory Spans as Predictors of Spoken Word Recognition and Receptive Vocabulary in Children with Cochlear Implants. , 2000, The Volta review.

[29]  Richard L Freyman,et al.  Lexical and indexical cues in masking by competing speech. , 2009, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

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

[31]  A. Jesse,et al.  Audiovisual benefit for recognition of speech presented with single-talker noise in older listeners , 2012 .

[32]  Lloyd G. Humphreys,et al.  Research on individual differences requires correlational analysis, not ANOVA , 1978 .

[33]  D. Abercrombie,et al.  Elements of General Phonetics , 1967 .

[34]  David B. Pisoni,et al.  Speech perception, word recognition and the structure of the lexicon , 1985, Speech Commun..