Behavioral and fMRI evidence that cognitive ability modulates the effect of semantic context on speech intelligibility

Text cues facilitate the perception of spoken sentences to which they are semantically related (Zekveld, Rudner, et al., 2011). In this study, semantically related and unrelated cues preceding sentences evoked more activation in middle temporal gyrus (MTG) and inferior frontal gyrus (IFG) than nonword cues, regardless of acoustic quality (speech in noise or speech in quiet). Larger verbal working memory (WM) capacity (reading span) was associated with greater intelligibility benefit obtained from related cues, with less speech-related activation in the left superior temporal gyrus and left anterior IFG, and with more activation in right medial frontal cortex for related versus unrelated cues. Better ability to comprehend masked text was associated with greater ability to disregard unrelated cues, and with more activation in left angular gyrus (AG). We conclude that individual differences in cognitive abilities are related to activation in a speech-sensitive network including left MTG, IFG and AG during cued speech perception.

[1]  A. Friederici,et al.  Syntactic Gender and Semantic Expectancy: ERPs Reveal Early Autonomy and Late Interaction , 2000, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

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

[3]  Hidenao Fukuyama,et al.  The neural basis of individual differences in working memory capacity: an fMRI study , 2003, NeuroImage.

[4]  E. Cardillo,et al.  Effects of Competing Speech on Sentence-Word Priming: Semantic, Perceptual, and Attentional Factors , 2001 .

[5]  M. Just,et al.  Brain Activation Modulated by Sentence Comprehension , 1996, Science.

[6]  Marcel Adam Just,et al.  From the SelectedWorks of Marcel Adam Just 2007 Lexical ambiguity in sentence comprehension , 2016 .

[7]  R. Engle.  Working Memory Capacity as Executive Attention , 2002 .

[8]  Sonja A. Kotz,et al.  Modulation of the Lexical–Semantic Network by Auditory Semantic Priming: An Event-Related Functional MRI Study , 2002, NeuroImage.

[9]  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.

[10]  Sven Joubert,et al.  Neural correlates of lexical and sublexical processes in reading , 2004, Brain and Language.

[11]  Peter Hagoort,et al.  UvA-DARE (Digital Academic Repository) Unification of speaker and meaning in language comprehension: an fMRI study , 2022 .

[12]  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.

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

[14]  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.

[15]  J. Desmond,et al.  Functional Specialization for Semantic and Phonological Processing in the Left Inferior Prefrontal Cortex , 1999, NeuroImage.

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

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

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

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

[20]  D. Norris,et al.  Shortlist B: a Bayesian model of continuous speech recognition. , 2008, Psychological review.

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

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

[23]  G. A. Miller,et al.  Some perceptual consequences of linguistic rules , 1963 .

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

[25]  M. Masson,et al.  Using confidence intervals in within-subject designs , 1994, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[26]  Adriana A. Zekveld,et al.  Top–down and bottom–up processes in speech comprehension , 2006, NeuroImage.

[27]  S. Arlinger,et al.  Visual evoked potentials: relation to adult speechreading and cognitive function. , 1989, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[28]  Peter Hagoort,et al.  Beyond the sentence given , 2007, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[29]  Jonas Obleser,et al.  Disentangling syntax and intelligibility in auditory language comprehension , 2009, Human brain mapping.

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

[31]  Colin Humphries,et al.  Time course of semantic processes during sentence comprehension: An fMRI study , 2007, NeuroImage.

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

[33]  E. T. Possing,et al.  Human temporal lobe activation by speech and nonspeech sounds. , 2000, Cerebral cortex.

[34]  Ingrid S. Johnsrude,et al.  Human auditory cortex is sensitive to the perceived clarity of speech , 2012, NeuroImage.

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

[36]  Lars-Göran Nilsson,et al.  Cue distinctiveness and forgetting: Effectiveness of self-generated retrieval cues in delayed recall. , 1988 .

[37]  Matthew H. Davis,et al.  Hierarchical Processing in Spoken Language Comprehension , 2003, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[38]  Rutvik H. Desai,et al.  The neurobiology of semantic memory , 2011, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[39]  T. Parrish,et al.  Cortical mechanisms of speech perception in noise. , 2008, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

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

[41]  M. Just,et al.  Neuroindices of cognitive workload: Neuroimaging, pupillometric and event-related potential studies of brain work , 2003 .

[42]  Hiroko Nakano,et al.  Speech and Span: Working Memory Capacity Impacts the Use of Animacy but Not of World Knowledge during Spoken Sentence Comprehension , 2010, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

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

[44]  J. Obleser,et al.  Expectancy constraints in degraded speech modulate the language comprehension network. , 2010, Cerebral cortex.

[45]  R. Bowtell,et al.  “sparse” temporal sampling in auditory fMRI , 1999, Human brain mapping.

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

[47]  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.

[48]  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.

[49]  S. Bookheimer,et al.  Form and Content Dissociating Syntax and Semantics in Sentence Comprehension , 1999, Neuron.

[50]  Karl J. Friston,et al.  A unified statistical approach for determining significant signals in images of cerebral activation , 1996, Human brain mapping.

[51]  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.

[52]  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.

[53]  David A. Medler,et al.  Neural correlates of sensory and decision processes in auditory object identification , 2004, Nature Neuroscience.

[54]  K. Drager,et al.  Effects of discourse context on the intelligibility of synthesized speech for young adult and older adult listeners: applications for AAC. , 2001, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[55]  A. Neubauer,et al.  Intelligence and neural efficiency , 2009, Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews.

[56]  J Ashburner,et al.  Functional neuroimaging of speech perception in six normal and two aphasic subjects. , 1999, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[57]  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.

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

[59]  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.

[60]  Van Strien,et al.  Classificatie van links- en rechtshandige proefpersonen. , 1992 .

[61]  R. Engle,et al.  Working-memory capacity, proactive interference, and divided attention: limits on long-term memory retrieval. , 2000, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.