The Association Between Cognitive Performance and Speech-in-Noise Perception for Adult Listeners: A Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis

Abstract

Published studies assessing the association between cognitive performance and speech-in-noise (SiN) perception examine different aspects of each, test different listeners, and often report quite variable associations. By examining the published evidence base using a systematic approach, we aim to identify robust patterns across studies and highlight any remaining gaps in knowledge. We limit our assessment to adult unaided listeners with audiometric profiles ranging from normal hearing to moderate hearing loss. A total of 253 articles were independently assessed by two researchers, with 25 meeting the criteria for inclusion. Included articles assessed cognitive measures of attention, memory, executive function, IQ, and processing speed. SiN measures varied by target (phonemes or syllables, words, and sentences) and masker type (unmodulated noise, modulated noise, >2-talker babble, and ≤2-talker babble. The overall association between cognitive performance and SiN perception was r = .31. For component cognitive domains, the association with (pooled) SiN perception was as follows: processing speed (r = .39), inhibitory control (r = .34), working memory (r = .28), episodic memory (r = .26), and crystallized IQ (r = .18). Similar associations were shown for the different speech target and masker types. This review suggests a general association of r≈.3 between cognitive performance and speech perception, although some variability in association appeared to exist depending on cognitive domain and SiN target or masker assessed. Where assessed, degree of unaided hearing loss did not play a major moderating role. We identify a number of cognitive performance and SiN perception combinations that have not been tested and whose future investigation would enable further fine-grained analyses of these relationships.

Serial Recall Predicts Vocoded Sentence Recognition Across Spectral Resolutions

“…There was a nonsignificant trend relating the WASI Perceptual Reasoning Index to sentence recognition, which had approximately the same effect size as previously reported relationships between other tests of fluid intelligence and vocoded speech (O'Neill et al, 2019). Previous research has found weak correlations between speech recognition and various cognitive subscales (Dryden et al, 2017), which may reflect the general association between fluid intelligence and speech recognition. Our results suggest that serial recall is a more proximal test of the skills necessary to perform vocoded sentence recognition.…”

“…The nonauditory variability in vocoded sentence recognition was primarily explained by individual variability in serial recall ability (see Figure 5). The strength of this relationship was stronger than typically observed between working memory tasks and speech recognition in noise (Dryden et al, 2017), even for working memory tasks that use auditory stimuli (S. L. Smith et al, 2016). There are several theoretical explanations that could account for this relationship.…”

“…Reading span (Daneman & Carpenter, 1980) is common test of verbal working memory, which has successfully predicted various speech recognition in noise outcomes (for reviews, see Akeroyd 2008;Dryden et al 2017). Reading span is a form of complex span task, in which participants must alternate between storing successive items in memory and processing unrelated information (Conway et al, 2005).…”

Hearing aid experience and background noise affect the robust relationship between working memory and speech recognition in noise

“…The relationship between speech recognition threshold (SRT) and working memory capacity (WMC) has been well-established (denoted as WMC-SRT relationship in this article), and has been found robust in listeners with and without hearing loss (e.g. Petersen et al 2016;Gordon-Salant and Cole 2016;Ng et al 2014;; more examples, (Gatehouse and Gordon 1990;Davis 2003;Gatehouse, Naylor, and Elberling 2003;Lunner 2003;Foo et al 2007;Lunner and Sundewall-Thor en 2007;Moore 2008;Rudner et al 2009;Rudner, R€ onnberg, and Lunner 2011;Picou, Ricketts, and Hornsby 2013;Dryden et al 2017). However, the general picture may have to be nuanced after a recent meta-analysis by (F€ ullgrabe and Rosen 2016).…”

Speech perception with temporally patterned noise maskers.

“…Some participants improved relative to the baseline (XYZ) condition, whereas other participants performed more poorly when the masker was repeated. We collected working memory and inhibitory control measures, which have been shown to correlate with speech perception in noise in prior research (for review see Dryden et al 2017;Akeroyd 2008), but these did not correlate with overall performance, nor with the repetition advantage. Nonetheless, the results suggest that some stable di↵erence or di↵erences among participants makes the repetition of the noise pattern beneficial for some and detrimental to others.…”