Literature DB >> 22967733

Working memory capacity may influence perceived effort during aided speech recognition in noise.

Mary Rudner1, Thomas Lunner, Thomas Behrens, Elisabet Sundewall Thorén, Jerker Rönnberg.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Recently there has been interest in using subjective ratings as a measure of perceived effort during speech recognition in noise. Perceived effort may be an indicator of cognitive load. Thus, subjective effort ratings during speech recognition in noise may covary both with signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and individual cognitive capacity.
PURPOSE: The present study investigated the relation between subjective ratings of the effort involved in listening to speech in noise, speech recognition performance, and individual working memory (WM) capacity in hearing impaired hearing aid users. RESEARCH
DESIGN: In two experiments, participants with hearing loss rated perceived effort during aided speech perception in noise. Noise type and SNR were manipulated in both experiments, and in the second experiment hearing aid compression release settings were also manipulated. Speech recognition performance was measured along with WM capacity. STUDY SAMPLE: There were 46 participants in all with bilateral mild to moderate sloping hearing loss. In Experiment 1 there were 16 native Danish speakers (eight women and eight men) with a mean age of 63.5 yr (SD = 12.1) and average pure tone (PT) threshold of 47. 6 dB (SD = 9.8). In Experiment 2 there were 30 native Swedish speakers (19 women and 11 men) with a mean age of 70 yr (SD = 7.8) and average PT threshold of 45.8 dB (SD = 6.6). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: A visual analog scale (VAS) was used for effort rating in both experiments. In Experiment 1, effort was rated at individually adapted SNRs while in Experiment 2 it was rated at fixed SNRs. Speech recognition in noise performance was measured using adaptive procedures in both experiments with Dantale II sentences in Experiment 1 and Hagerman sentences in Experiment 2. WM capacity was measured using a letter-monitoring task in Experiment 1 and the reading span task in Experiment 2.
RESULTS: In both experiments, there was a strong and significant relation between rated effort and SNR that was independent of individual WM capacity, whereas the relation between rated effort and noise type seemed to be influenced by individual WM capacity. Experiment 2 showed that hearing aid compression setting influenced rated effort.
CONCLUSIONS: Subjective ratings of the effort involved in speech recognition in noise reflect SNRs, and individual cognitive capacity seems to influence relative rating of noise type. American Academy of Audiology.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22967733     DOI: 10.3766/jaaa.23.7.7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol        ISSN: 1050-0545            Impact factor:   1.664


  41 in total

1.  Cingulo-Opercular Function During Word Recognition in Noise for Older Adults with Hearing Loss.

Authors:  Kenneth I Vaden; Stefanie E Kuchinsky; Jayne B Ahlstrom; Susan E Teubner-Rhodes; Judy R Dubno; Mark A Eckert
Journal:  Exp Aging Res       Date:  2016       Impact factor: 1.645

2.  Perceived listening effort for a tonal task with contralateral competing signals.

Authors:  William J Bologna; Monita Chatterjee; Judy R Dubno
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2013-10       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  Commentary: listening can be exhausting--fatigue in children and adults with hearing loss.

Authors:  Fred H Bess; Benjamin W Y Hornsby
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2014 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 3.570

4.  A Comparison of Two Methods for Measuring Listening Effort As Part of an Audiologic Test Battery.

Authors:  Jani Johnson; Jingjing Xu; Robyn Cox; Paul Pendergraft
Journal:  Am J Audiol       Date:  2015-09       Impact factor: 1.493

5.  Musicians at the Cocktail Party: Neural Substrates of Musical Training During Selective Listening in Multispeaker Situations.

Authors:  Sebastian Puschmann; Sylvain Baillet; Robert J Zatorre
Journal:  Cereb Cortex       Date:  2019-07-22       Impact factor: 5.357

6.  Understanding Speech Amid the Jingle and Jangle: Recommendations for Improving Measurement Practices in Listening Effort Research.

Authors:  Julia F Strand; Lucia Ray; Naseem H Dillman-Hasso; Jed Villanueva; Violet A Brown
Journal:  Audit Percept Cogn       Date:  2021-03-23

7.  Evaluation of the NAL Dynamic Conversations Test in older listeners with hearing loss.

Authors:  Virginia Best; Gitte Keidser; Katrina Freeston; Jörg M Buchholz
Journal:  Int J Audiol       Date:  2017-08-21       Impact factor: 2.117

8.  Cognitive hearing science: the legacy of Stuart Gatehouse.

Authors:  Jerker Rönnberg; Mary Rudner; Thomas Lunner
Journal:  Trends Amplif       Date:  2011-05-22

Review 9.  Age-Related Changes in Objective and Subjective Speech Perception in Complex Listening Environments.

Authors:  Karen S Helfer; Gabrielle R Merchant; Peter A Wasiuk
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2017-10-17       Impact factor: 2.297

10.  Impact of Hearing Aid Technology on Outcomes in Daily Life II: Speech Understanding and Listening Effort.

Authors:  Jani A Johnson; Jingjing Xu; Robyn M Cox
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2016 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 3.570

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.