Age-Related Changes in Listening Effort for Various Types of Masker Noises

Desjardins, Jamie L.; Doherty, Karen A.

doi:10.1097/aud.0b013e31826d0ba4

Cited by 165 publications

(208 citation statements)

References 93 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

172

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…It is difficult to know if and to what extent variations along these dimensions affect the relationship to cognition, and whether these variations may explain, at least in part, inconsistencies between studies. For instance, could differences in target speech help explain why some studies (Desjardins and Doherty 2013;Moradi et al 2014), using a complex sentence perception test, found a significant correlation between reading span and intelligibility, while another study (Kempe et al 2012), using syllables and the same cognitive test, did not? The goal of this study is to systematically vary the complexity of the listening situation and to investigate how this variation affects the relationship between intelligibility and assorted cognitive measures.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Contribution of Auditory and Cognitive Factors to Intelligibility of Words and Sentences in Noise

Heinrich

Knight

2016

Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Understanding the causes for speech-in-noise (SiN) perception difficulties is complex, and is made even more difficult by the fact that listening situations can vary widely in target and background sounds. While there is general agreement that both auditory and cognitive factors are important, their exact relationship to SiN perception across various listening situations remains unclear. This study manipulated the characteristics of the listening situation in two ways: first, target stimuli were either isolated words, or words heard in the context of low-(LP) and high-predictability (HP) sentences; second, the background sound, speech-modulated noise, was presented at two signal-to-noise ratios. Speech intelligibility was measured for 30 older listeners (aged 62-84) with age-normal hearing and related to individual differences in cognition (working memory, inhibition and linguistic skills) and hearing (PTA 0.25-8 kHz and temporal processing). The results showed that while the effect of hearing thresholds on intelligibility was rather uniform, the influence of cognitive abilities was more specific to a certain listening situation. By revealing a complex picture of relationships between intelligibility and cognition, these results may help us understand some of the inconsistencies in the literature as regards cognitive contributions to speech perception.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Contribution of Auditory and Cognitive Factors to Intelligibility of Words and Sentences in Noise

Heinrich

Knight

2016

Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, use of a structured interview or self-report questionnaire would have added information, for example, as to whether the perceived impact of HI in daily life is related to cognitive function (Ng, Rudner, Lunner, & Rönnberg, 2013). This question has so far received relatively little attention but is motivated in view of the connection between speech recognition in adverse conditions, cognitive capacity and listening effort (Desjardins & Doherty, 2013;Rudner et al, 2012). Effort in hearing has in turn been identified as a risk factor for stress-related sick-leave in individuals with HI (Kramer et al, 2006).…”

Section: Methodological Considerationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Bayliss et al, 2005;Kane et al, 2005;Unsworth et al, 2009) Hearing impairment and working memory capacity WMC has been found to play the important role of supporting speech recognition in noise in individuals with HI (Akeroyd, 2008;Besser, Koelewijn, Zekveld, Kramer, & Festen, 2013;Gatehouse, Naylor, & Elberling, 2006;Lunner, 2003;Lunner & Sundewall-Thorén, 2007;Rudner et al, 2011). This has been shown for speech recognition of lowredundancy sentences material in background noise that is modulated, unmodulated (Lunner, 2003;Rudner, Foo, Rönnberg, & Lunner, 2009;Rudner et al, 2011) or modulated using competing speech (Desjardins & Doherty, 2013). In particular, WMC has been related to better speech recognition with different types of signal processing algorithms (Arehart et al, 2013;Gatehouse et al, 2006;Rudner, Foo, Rönnberg, et al, 2009;Rudner et al, 2011).…”

Section: Working Memory Capacitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…On a more subjective level, high WMC has been linked to lower perceived effort when listening to degraded speech (Desjardins & Doherty, 2013;Rudner, Lunner, Behrens, Thoren, & Rönnberg, 2012) and, from a slightly different perspective, those with a high WMC may be better able to discern and report differences between hearing aid settings, formulate their needs and use hearing aid controls more effectively than those with low WMC (Lunner, 2003). Taken together, this points not only to the relevance of cognitive assessment in hearing rehabilitation but also to the range of channels through which cognitive function may help compensate for HI.…”

Section: Working Memory Capacitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Foo, Rudner, Rönnberg, & Lunner, 2007;Hällgren, Larsby, Lyxell, & Arlinger, 2001;Lunner, 2003;Rudner, Foo, Rönnberg, et al, 2009; and other languages (Arehart et al, 2013;Besser, Zekveld, Kramer, Rönnberg, & Festen, 2012;Desjardins & Doherty, 2013;. Paper IV provides reference data for Swedish RST performance in the original and a shortened version of the test.…”

Section: Rhyme Judgment and Working Memory Capacitymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Representing sounds and spellings: Phonological decline and compensatory working memory in acquired hearing impairment

Classon¹

2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Representing sounds and spellingsPhonological decline and compensatory working memory in acquired hearing impairment Pursue one great decisive aim with force and determination.Carl von Clausewitz "On war" AbstractLong-term severe acquired hearing impairment (HI) is associated with a deterioration of phonological representations in semantic long-term memory that negatively affects phonological awareness (Andersson, 2002). The primary aim of this thesis was twofold: to use electrophysiological and behavioral measures to examine phonological processing in adults with moderate-to-profound, postlingually acquired HI, and to determine whether explicit working memory processing of phonology and individual working memory capacity (WMC) can compensate for phonological decline in this group. The secondary aim was to provide reference data for a Swedish test of WMC that is frequently used in the field of cognitive hearing science and to examine the relation between test performance and speech recognition in noise in a larger sample of individuals with HI.In papers I-III, non-auditory tasks were used to examine input and output phonological processing, episodic long-term memory, and WMC in individuals with HI as compared to a reference group with normal hearing. Text-based rhyme judgments of word pairs with matching or mismatching orthography and letter fluency were used to assess phonological processing. In papers II-III, the relation between phonological task performance and tests of WMC (papers II-III) and episodic long-term memory (paper II) were examined. In paper I, electrophysiological indices of phonological processing under conditions that either allowed for, or limited, involvement of explicit processing were investigated. While the overall purpose was to test if working memory processing of phonology and individual differences in WMC could compensate for phonological decline in individuals with HI, paper II also tested a proposal made by the Ease of Language Understanding (ELU) model . The ELU postulates that individual differences in WMC will modulate task performance under conditions with increased occurrence of phonological mismatch, as in rhyme judgment of written words with mismatching orthography by individuals with degraded phonological representations.Paper IV examined performance on the reading span test (RST;Rönnberg, Lyxell, Arlinger, & Kinnefors, 1989), the measure of WMC used in papers I-III, in a larger sample of individuals with HI who had participated in different projects from our laboratory and its collaborators. The test is theoretically anchored in the capacity theory of working memory (Just & Carpenter, 1992) and plays an important role in the ELU model. Test performance in two different age groups were compared (50-69, 70-89), and the original version of the test was compared to a shortened version. Examination of the relation between test performance and speech recognition in noise was also conducted.The results replicated previous findings of phonological processing declines following acqu...

show abstract

Clinical Performance Evaluation of a Personal Sound Amplification Product vs a Basic Hearing Aid and a Premium Hearing Aid

Cho

Park

Seol

et al. 2019

JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IMPORTANCE Hearing loss is a highly prevalent condition with multiple negative associated outcomes, yet few persons with hearing loss have hearing aids (HAs). Personal sound amplification products (PSAPs) could be an alternative low-cost solution to HAs, but data are lacking on the performance of PSAPs.OBJECTIVE To evaluate the clinical efficacy of a PSAP by comparing its performance with that of a basic HA and a premium HA in participants with mild, moderate, and moderately severe hearing impairment. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSA prospective, single-institution cohort study was performed with a total of 56 participants, including 19 with mild hearing loss, 20 with moderate hearing loss, and 17 with moderately severe hearing loss. All participants underwent 4 clinical hearing tests with each of the PSAP, basic HA, and premium HA, and all completed an evaluative questionnaire.INTERVENTIONS All hearing devices (PSAP, basic HA, and premium HA) were applied by a clinician to prevent bias and order effects; participants were blinded to the device in use, and sequence of devices was randomized. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESThe study used the Korean version of the hearing in noise test, the speech intelligibility in noise test, listening effort measurement using a dual-task paradigm, pupillometry, and a self-rating questionnaire regarding sound quality and preference. These tests were administered under the following 4 hearing conditions: unaided hearing, use of PSAP, use of basic HA, and use of premium HA. RESULTSThe study included 56 participants with a mean age of 56 years (interquartile range, 48-59 years); 29 (52%) were women. In the mild and moderate hearing loss groups, there was no meaningful difference between PSAP, basic HA, and premium HA for speech perception (Cohen d = 0.06-1.05), sound quality (Cohen d = 0.06-0.71), listening effort (Cohen d = 0.10-0.92), and user preference (PSAP, 41%; basic HA, 28%; premium HA, 31%). However, for the patients with moderately severe hearing loss, the premium HA had better performance across most tests (Cohen d = 0.60-1.59), and 70% of participants preferred to use the premium HA. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCEThe results indicate that basic and premium HAs were not superior to the PSAP in patients with mild to moderate hearing impairment, which suggests that PSAPs might be used as an alternative to HAs in these patient populations. However, if hearing loss is more severe, then HAs, especially premium HAs, should be considered as an option to manage hearing loss.

show abstract

Age-Related Changes in Listening Effort for Various Types of Masker Noises

Cited by 165 publications

References 93 publications

The Contribution of Auditory and Cognitive Factors to Intelligibility of Words and Sentences in Noise

The Contribution of Auditory and Cognitive Factors to Intelligibility of Words and Sentences in Noise

Representing sounds and spellings: Phonological decline and compensatory working memory in acquired hearing impairment

Clinical Performance Evaluation of a Personal Sound Amplification Product vs a Basic Hearing Aid and a Premium Hearing Aid

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About