Cognition and Speech-In-Noise Recognition: The Role of Proactive Interference

Ellis, Rachel; Rönnberg, Jerker

doi:10.3766/jaaa.25.10.6

Cited by 10 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 35 publications

(45 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Proactive interference refers to the degradation of memory traces by prior encoded information (Kane and Engle, 2000 ), particularly items with a similar context—such as, words within the same category in a closed set corpus. The ability to resist semantic proactive interference has been shown to be closely related to speech in noise recognition (Ellis and Rönnberg, 2014 ). Differences in this study in the level of proactive interference between high and low working memory participants may mediate cross-trial or within-trial interference and hence the accuracy of recall.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Costs of switching auditory spatial attention in following conversational turn-taking

Lin

Carlile

2015

Front. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Following a multi-talker conversation relies on the ability to rapidly and efficiently shift the focus of spatial attention from one talker to another. The current study investigated the listening costs associated with shifts in spatial attention during conversational turn-taking in 16 normally-hearing listeners using a novel sentence recall task. Three pairs of syntactically fixed but semantically unpredictable matrix sentences, recorded from a single male talker, were presented concurrently through an array of three loudspeakers (directly ahead and +/−30° azimuth). Subjects attended to one spatial location, cued by a tone, and followed the target conversation from one sentence to the next using the call-sign at the beginning of each sentence. Subjects were required to report the last three words of each sentence (speech recall task) or answer multiple choice questions related to the target material (speech comprehension task). The reading span test, attention network test, and trail making test were also administered to assess working memory, attentional control, and executive function. There was a 10.7 ± 1.3% decrease in word recall, a pronounced primacy effect, and a rise in masker confusion errors and word omissions when the target switched location between sentences. Switching costs were independent of the location, direction, and angular size of the spatial shift but did appear to be load dependent and only significant for complex questions requiring multiple cognitive operations. Reading span scores were positively correlated with total words recalled, and negatively correlated with switching costs and word omissions. Task switching speed (Trail-B time) was also significantly correlated with recall accuracy. Overall, this study highlights (i) the listening costs associated with shifts in spatial attention and (ii) the important role of working memory in maintaining goal relevant information and extracting meaning from dynamic multi-talker conversations.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Costs of switching auditory spatial attention in following conversational turn-taking

Lin

Carlile

2015

Front. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Specifically, inhibitory control is, unlike WMC, important when as much as 50% of the information is lost due to adverse listening conditions, whereas WMC is especially important for 80% speech intelligibility. In a study by Ellis and Rönnberg (), the authors used a 2‐talker semantically meaningful speech as masker, whereas this study used a slightly modulated speech‐shaped noise as masker. This study also used a different speech material than Ellis & Rönnberg () did.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In a study by Ellis and Rönnberg (), the authors used a 2‐talker semantically meaningful speech as masker, whereas this study used a slightly modulated speech‐shaped noise as masker. This study also used a different speech material than Ellis & Rönnberg () did. However, in line with the results in this study, they showed that capacity to resist semantic interference can be used to predict performance in a speech‐in‐noise‐task.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Swedish Hayling task, and its relation to working memory, verbal ability, and speech‐recognition‐in‐noise

Stenbäck

Hällgren

Lyxell

et al. 2015

Scandinavian J Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cognitive functions and speech-recognition-in-noise were evaluated with a cognitive test battery, assessing response inhibition using the Hayling task, working memory capacity (WMC) and verbal information processing, and an auditory test of speech recognition. The cognitive tests were performed in silence whereas the speech recognition task was presented in noise. Thirty young normally-hearing individuals participated in the study. The aim of the study was to investigate one executive function, response inhibition, and whether it is related to individual working memory capacity (WMC), and how speech-recognition-in-noise relates to WMC and inhibitory control. The results showed a significant difference between initiation and response inhibition, suggesting that the Hayling task taps cognitive activity responsible for executive control. Our findings also suggest that high verbal ability was associated with better performance in the Hayling task. We also present findings suggesting that individuals who perform well on tasks involving response inhibition, and WMC, also perform well on a speech-in-noise task. Our findings indicate that capacity to resist semantic interference can be used to predict performance on speech-in-noise tasks.

show abstract

“…Inhibitory control is the ability to control impulses and undesired activity. This ability seems to be important in listening tasks where a target signal needs to be followed while ignoring task-irrelevant input (Engle, 2002;Diamond, 2013;Ellis and Munro, 2013;Ellis and Rönnberg, 2014). In line with this, inhibitory control has been shown to be related to better speech recognition performance in noise for adults with normal hearing (Stenbäck et al, 2015;2016).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 82%

Listening Effort: Order Effects and Core Executive Functions

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is possible that the SNR and measures used were not as sensitive as required to measure listening effort behaviorally. In the present experimental setup, prior noise exposure impedes the beneficial effects of performing a task in quiet. Self-reports seem to provide a valid measure of perceived listening effort that is related to the individual's inhibitory control. The present findings suggest that participants with better inhibitory control are more susceptible to the task demand level both in quiet and in noise.

show abstract

Cognition and Speech-In-Noise Recognition: The Role of Proactive Interference

Cited by 10 publications

References 35 publications

Costs of switching auditory spatial attention in following conversational turn-taking

Costs of switching auditory spatial attention in following conversational turn-taking

The Swedish Hayling task, and its relation to working memory, verbal ability, and speech‐recognition‐in‐noise

Listening Effort: Order Effects and Core Executive Functions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About