Working Memory, Age, and Hearing Loss

Arehart, Kathryn H.; Souza, Pamela E.; Baca, Rosalinda; Kates, James M.

doi:10.1097/aud.0b013e318271aa5e

Cited by 131 publications

(84 citation statements)

References 52 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The auditory filter bandwidth may contribute to a smoothing of the internal spectral representation and thus reduce the effect of narrowband spectral changes introduced by the noise-suppression processing. In addition, listeners with greater degrees of hearing loss may be more affected by changes in envelope and temporal fine structure caused by the presence of noise and processing distortion (Anzalone et al 2006; Arehart et al 2013; Hopkins & Moore 2011; Lunner et al 2012). Finally, older listeners may have reduced temporal fine structure processing (e.g., Grose & Mamo, 2010) and as such, may rely more on envelope cues and be more susceptible to changes to envelope fidelity.…”

Section: Discusssionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, listeners with high working memory capacity benefit more than those with low working memory capacity from fast-acting wide-dynamic range compression, especially in modulated noise (Gatehouse et al 2003, 2006a,b; Lunner & Sundewall-Thorén 2007; Ohlenforst et al 2014). Arehart et al (2013) showed that working memory, age and hearing loss all played a role in how listeners respond to frequency compression of noisy speech.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Relationship Among Signal Fidelity, Hearing Loss, and Working Memory for Digital Noise Suppression

et al. 2015

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives The present study considered speech modified by additive babble combined with noise-suppression processing. The purpose was to determine the relative importance of the signal modifications, individual peripheral hearing loss, and individual cognitive capacity on speech intelligibility and speech quality. Design The participant group consisted of 31 individuals with moderate high-frequency hearing loss ranging in age from 51 to 89 years (mean= 69.6 years). Speech intelligibility and speech quality were measured using low-context sentences presented in babble at several signal-to-noise ratios. Speech stimuli were processed with a binary mask noise-suppression strategy with systematic manipulations of two parameters (error rate and attenuation values). The cumulative effects of signal modification produced by babble and signal processing were quantified using an envelope-distortion metric. Working memory capacity was assessed with a reading span test. Analysis of variance was used to determine the effects of signal processing parameters on perceptual scores. Hierarchical linear modeling was used to determine the role of degree of hearing loss and working memory capacity in individual listener response to the processed noisy speech. The model also considered improvements in envelope fidelity caused by the binary mask and the degradations to envelope caused by error and noise. Results The participants showed significant benefits in terms of intelligibility scores and quality ratings for noisy speech processed by the ideal binary mask noise-suppression strategy. This benefit was observed across a range of signal-to-noise ratios and persisted when up to a 30% error rate was introduced into the processing. Average intelligibility scores and average quality ratings were well-predicted by an objective metric of envelope fidelity. Degree of hearing loss and working memory capacity were significant factors in explaining individual listener’s intelligibility scores for binary mask processing applied to speech in babble. Degree of hearing loss and working memory capacity did not predict listeners’ quality ratings. Conclusions The results indicate that envelope fidelity is a primary factor in determining the combined effects of noise and binary mask processing for intelligibility and quality of speech presented in babble noise. Degree of hearing loss and working memory capacity are significant factors in explaining variability in listeners’ speech intelligibility scores but not in quality ratings.

show abstract

Section: Discusssionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Relationship Among Signal Fidelity, Hearing Loss, and Working Memory for Digital Noise Suppression

et al. 2015

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Working memory may also be related to listeners’ response to amplification, including frequency compression (Arehart, Souza, Baca, & Kates, 2013) and digital noise reduction (Arehart, Souza, Lunner, Syskind Pedersen, & Kates, 2013; Ng, Rudner, Lunner, Pedersen, & Ronnberg, 2013). Most relevant to this paper, several studies have shown that listeners with low working memory perform poorly with fast-acting wide-dynamic range compression (WDRC) (Foo, Rudner, Ronnberg, & Lunner, 2007; Gatehouse, Naylor, & Elberling, 2006; Lunner & Sundewall-Thoren, 2007; Ohlenforst, Souza, & Macdonald, 2014).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Relating Working Memory to Compression Parameters in Clinically Fit Hearing Aids

Souza

Sirow

2014

Am J Audiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Several laboratory studies have demonstrated that working memory may influence response to compression speed in controlled (i.e., laboratory) comparisons of compression. In this study, we explored whether the same relationship would occur under less controlled conditions, as might occur in a typical audiology clinic. Method Participants included 27 older adults who sought hearing care in a private practice audiology clinic. Working memory was measured for each participant using a reading span test. We examined the relationship between working memory and aided speech recognition in noise, using clinically-fit hearing aids with a range of compression speeds. Results Working memory, amount of hearing loss, and age each contributed to speech recognition but the contribution depended on the speed of the compression processor. For fast-acting compression, the best performance was obtained by patients with high working memory. For slow-acting compression, speech recognition was affected by age and amount of hearing loss but was not affected by working memory. Conclusions Despite the expectation of greater variability from differences in compression implementation, number of compression channels or attendant signal processing, the relationship between working memory and compression speed showed a similar pattern as results from more controlled, laboratory-based studies.

show abstract

“…The ELU model postulates that this ideal language processing occurs in an implicit, bottom-up manner, without the need for cognitive processing. However, if the incoming phonological stream does not immediately match a representation within the listener's long-term semantic memory, he or she must use explicit top-down cognitive processing in order to successfully understand the message.Examples of when these top-down processing skills (as measured by tasks of working memory capacity) significantly account for individual variance include situations in which the target speech is masked (Akeroyd, 2008;Conway, Cowan, & Bunting, 2001;Gatehouse, Naylor, & Elberling, 2003;Lunner, 2003;Rudner & Lunner, 2014; Sörqvist & Rönnberg, 2012), when the listener has an impaired auditory system, or when signal processing within a hearing instrument has altered the incoming acoustic stream (Arehart, Souza, Baca, & Kates, 2013;Foo, Rudner, Rönnberg, & Lunner, 2007;Rönnberg et al, 2013;Rönnberg et al, 2008;Souza, Arehart, Shen, Anderson, & Kates, 2015). Mismatch and resultant cognitive resource recruitment are ultimately determined by the fidelity of both the input phonological stream and the phonological representation in an individual's semantic long-term memory.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Age-Related Changes in Objective and Subjective Speech Perception in Complex Listening Environments

Helfer

Merchant

Wasiuk

2017

J Speech Lang Hear Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: A frequent complaint by older adults is difficulty communicating in challenging acoustic environments. The purpose of this work was to review and summarize information about how speech perception in complex listening situations changes across the adult age range. Method: This article provides a review of age-related changes in speech understanding in complex listening environments and summarizes results from several studies conducted in our laboratory. Results: Both degree of high frequency hearing loss and cognitive test performance limit individuals' ability to understand speech in difficult listening situations as they age. The performance of middle-aged adults is similar to that of younger adults in the presence of noise maskers, but they experience substantially more difficulty when the masker is 1 or 2 competing speech messages. For the most part, middle-aged participants in studies conducted in our laboratory reported as much self-perceived hearing problems as did older adult participants. Conclusions: Research supports the multifactorial nature of listening in real-world environments. Current audiologic assessment practices are often insufficient to identify the true speech understanding struggles that individuals experience in these situations. This points to the importance of giving weight to patients' self-reported difficulties. Presentation Video: http://cred.pubs.asha.org/article. aspx?articleid=2601619This research forum contains papers from the 2016 Research Symposium at the ASHA Convention held in Philadelphia, PA.T he primary complaint of most adults with hearing impairment is difficulty understanding speech in noisy situations (Committee on Hearing Bioacoustics and Biomechanics, 1988;Pichora-Fuller, 1997). The most problematic situations reported by patients tend to be those that involve more than one intelligible talker. This is consistent with research demonstrating that older adults perform poorer than younger adults on laboratory-based tasks in which there are multiple speech sources, particularly when the competing speech is comprehensible (Helfer, Chevalier, & Freyman, 2010;Tun, O'Kane, & Wingfield, 2002).Why do these competing speech situations become more challenging as individuals age? The ability to understand a message in the presence of competing speech involves multiple levels of both peripheral and higher level processing, from segregating the message of interest from nonessential background signals to focusing and maintaining attention on the target stream, to decoding, understanding, and encoding the information into memory. Problems at any of these levels can lead to misunderstanding.An important contributor to these listening difficulties in adverse situations is the peripheral hearing loss that typically accompanies aging. High-frequency hearing loss attenuates and distorts the incoming acoustic signal and is the primary cause of problems understanding speech in noise (Arbogast, Mason, & Kidd, 2005;Marrone, Mason, & Kidd, 2008). However, other intrinsic variables als...

show abstract

Working Memory, Age, and Hearing Loss

Cited by 131 publications

References 52 publications

Relationship Among Signal Fidelity, Hearing Loss, and Working Memory for Digital Noise Suppression

Relationship Among Signal Fidelity, Hearing Loss, and Working Memory for Digital Noise Suppression

Relating Working Memory to Compression Parameters in Clinically Fit Hearing Aids

Age-Related Changes in Objective and Subjective Speech Perception in Complex Listening Environments

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About