Interactions between cognition, compression, and listening conditions: effects on speech-in-noise performance in a two-channel hearing aid.

This study which included 23 experienced hearing aid users replicated several of the experiments reported in Gatehouse et al (2003, 2006) with new speech test material, language, and test procedure. The performance measure used was SNR required for 80% correct words in a sentence test. Consistent with Gatehouse et al, this study indicated that subjects showing a low score in a cognitive test (visual letter monitoring) performed better in the speech recognition test with slow time constants than with fast time constants, and performed better in unmodulated noise than in modulated noise, while subjects with high scores on the cognitive test showed the opposite pattern. Furthermore, cognitive test scores were significantly correlated with the differential advantage of fast-acting versus slow-acting compression in conditions of modulated noise. The pure tone average threshold explained 30% of the variance in aided speech recognition in noise under relatively simple listening conditions, while cognitive test scores explained about 40% of the variance under more complex, fluctuating listening conditions, where the pure tone average explained less than 5% of the variance. This suggests that speech recognition under steady-state noise conditions may underestimate the role of cognition in real-life listening.

[1]  R. Plomp Noise, Amplification, and Compression: Considerations of Three Main Issues in Hearing Aid Design , 1994, Ear and hearing.

[2]  A Wingfield,et al.  Cognitive factors in auditory performance: context, speed of processing, and constraints of memory. , 1996, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[3]  D. Schum,et al.  Actual and predicted word-recognition performance of elderly hearing-impaired listeners. , 1991, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[4]  A Wingfield,et al.  One voice too many: adult age differences in language processing with different types of distracting sounds. , 1999, The journals of gerontology. Series B, Psychological sciences and social sciences.

[5]  B C Moore,et al.  Perceptual consequences of cochlear hearing loss and their implications for the design of hearing aids. , 1996, Ear and hearing.

[6]  M. Just,et al.  From the SelectedWorks of Marcel Adam Just 1992 A capacity theory of comprehension : Individual differences in working memory , 2017 .

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

[8]  W. Dreschler,et al.  ICRA noises: artificial noise signals with speech-like spectral and temporal properties for hearing instrument assessment. International Collegium for Rehabilitative Audiology. , 2001, Audiology : official organ of the International Society of Audiology.

[9]  L Magnusson,et al.  Predicted and Measured Speech Recognition Performance in Noise with Linear Amplification , 2001, Ear and hearing.

[10]  J. Towse,et al.  Individual differences in working memory , 2006, Neuroscience.

[11]  R L Freyman,et al.  The role of perceived spatial separation in the unmasking of speech. , 1999, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[12]  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.

[13]  J. Blauert Spatial Hearing: The Psychophysics of Human Sound Localization , 1983 .

[14]  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.

[15]  A. Baddeley,et al.  The multi-component model of working memory: Explorations in experimental cognitive psychology , 2006, Neuroscience.

[16]  Wouter A. Dreschler,et al.  ICRA Noises: Artificial Noise Signals with Speech-like Spectral and Temporal Properties for Hearing Instrument Assessment: Ruidos ICRA: Señates de ruido artificial con espectro similar al habla y propiedades temporales para pruebas de instrumentos auditivos , 2001 .

[17]  Wouter A Dreschler,et al.  The relationship between the intelligibility of time-compressed speech and speech in noise in young and elderly listeners. , 2002, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[18]  M. Hautus Corrections for extreme proportions and their biasing effects on estimated values ofd′ , 1995 .

[19]  Edward E. Smith,et al.  A Parametric Study of Prefrontal Cortex Involvement in Human Working Memory , 1996, NeuroImage.

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

[21]  Liang Li,et al.  Does the information content of an irrelevant source differentially affect spoken word recognition in younger and older adults? , 2004, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[22]  H Stanislaw,et al.  Calculation of signal detection theory measures , 1999, Behavior research methods, instruments, & computers : a journal of the Psychonomic Society, Inc.

[23]  J. Knutson,et al.  Psychological Change following 18 Months of Cochlear Implant Use , 1991, The Annals of otology, rhinology, and laryngology.

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

[25]  D. M. Green,et al.  Signal detection theory and psychophysics , 1966 .

[26]  K. S. Rhebergen,et al.  A Speech Intelligibility Index-based approach to predict the speech reception threshold for sentences in fluctuating noise for normal-hearing listeners. , 2005, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

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

[28]  Stuart K. Card,et al.  Models of working memory , 1989 .

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

[30]  Gurjit Singh,et al.  Effects of Age on Auditory and Cognitive Processing: Implications for Hearing Aid Fitting and Audiologic Rehabilitation , 2006, Trends in amplification.

[31]  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.

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

[33]  P J Abbas,et al.  Multivariate Predictors of Audiological Success with Multichannel Cochlear Implants , 1993, The Annals of otology, rhinology, and laryngology.

[34]  Shelley Witt,et al.  Recognition of “Real-World” Musical Excerpts by Cochlear Implant Recipients and Normal-Hearing Adults , 2005, Ear and hearing.

[35]  J. Dubno,et al.  Effects of age and mild hearing loss on speech recognition in noise. , 1984, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[36]  M. D’Esposito Working memory. , 2008, Handbook of clinical neurology.

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