Literature DB >> 23187606

Age and measurement time-of-day effects on speech recognition in noise.

Carrie E Veneman1, Sandra Gordon-Salant, Lois J Matthews, Judy R Dubno.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of measurement time of day on speech recognition in noise and the extent to which time-of-day effects differ with age. Older adults tend to have more difficulty understanding speech in noise than younger adults, even when hearing is normal. Two possible contributors to this age difference in speech recognition may be measurement time of day and inhibition. Most younger adults are "evening-type," showing peak circadian arousal in the evening, whereas most older adults are "morning-type," with circadian arousal peaking in the morning. Tasks that require inhibition of irrelevant information have been shown to be affected by measurement time of day, with maximum performance attained at one's peak time of day. The authors hypothesized that a change in inhibition will be associated with measurement time of day and therefore affect speech recognition in noise, with better performance in the morning for older adults and in the evening for younger adults.
DESIGN: Fifteen younger evening-type adults (20-28 years) and 15 older morning-type adults with normal hearing (66-78 years) listened to the Hearing in Noise Test (HINT) and the Quick Speech in Noise (QuickSIN) test in the morning and evening (peak and off-peak times). Time of day preference was assessed using the Morningness-Eveningness Questionnaire. Sentences and noise were presented binaurally through insert earphones. During morning and evening sessions, participants solved word-association problems within the visual-distraction task (VDT), which was used as an estimate of inhibition. After each session, participants rated perceived mental demand of the tasks using a revised version of the NASA Task Load Index.
RESULTS: Younger adults performed significantly better on the speech-in-noise tasks and rated themselves as requiring significantly less mental demand when tested at their peak (evening) than off-peak (morning) time of day. In contrast, time-of-day effects were not observed for the older adults on the speech recognition or rating tasks. Although older adults required significantly more advantageous signal-to-noise ratios than younger adults for equivalent speech-recognition performance, a significantly larger younger versus older age difference in speech recognition was observed in the evening than in the morning. Older adults performed significantly poorer than younger adults on the VDT, but performance was not affected by measurement time of day. VDT performance for misleading distracter items was significantly correlated with HINT and QuickSIN test performance at the peak measurement time of day.
CONCLUSIONS: Although all participants had normal hearing, speech recognition in noise was significantly poorer for older than younger adults, with larger age-related differences in the evening (an off-peak time for older adults) than in the morning. The significant effect of measurement time of day suggests that this factor may impact the clinical assessment of speech recognition in noise for all individuals. It appears that inhibition, as estimated by a visual distraction task for misleading visual items, is a cognitive mechanism that is related to speech-recognition performance in noise, at least at a listener's peak time of day.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23187606      PMCID: PMC3587027          DOI: 10.1097/AUD.0b013e31826d0b81

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ear Hear        ISSN: 0196-0202            Impact factor:   3.570


  37 in total

1.  Age, time of testing, and proactive interference.

Authors:  Lynn Hasher; Christie Chung; Cynthia P May; Natalie Foong
Journal:  Can J Exp Psychol       Date:  2002-09

2.  Age differences in short-term retention of rapidly changing information.

Authors:  W K KIRCHNER
Journal:  J Exp Psychol       Date:  1958-04

3.  Episodic long-term memory of spoken discourse masked by speech: what is the role for working memory capacity?

Authors:  Patrik Sörqvist; Jerker Rönnberg
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2011-12-22       Impact factor: 2.297

4.  A self-assessment questionnaire to determine morningness-eveningness in human circadian rhythms.

Authors:  J A Horne; O Ostberg
Journal:  Int J Chronobiol       Date:  1976

5.  Distraction by competing speech in young and older adult listeners.

Authors:  Patricia A Tun; Gail O'Kane; Arthur Wingfield
Journal:  Psychol Aging       Date:  2002-09

6.  An Evaluation of the BKB-SIN, HINT, QuickSIN, and WIN Materials on Listeners With Normal Hearing and Listeners With Hearing Loss.

Authors:  Richard H Wilson; Rachel A McArdle; Sherri L Smith
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2007-08       Impact factor: 2.297

7.  N-backer: an auditory n-back task with automatic scoring of spoken responses.

Authors:  Andrew F Monk; Dan Jackson; Dea Nielsen; Elizabeth Jefferies; Patrick Olivier
Journal:  Behav Res Methods       Date:  2011-09

8.  Sleep in older persons: sleep structures of 50- to 60-year-old men and women.

Authors:  W B Webb
Journal:  J Gerontol       Date:  1982-09

9.  Age-related reduction in the maximal capacity for sleep--implications for insomnia.

Authors:  Elizabeth B Klerman; Derk-Jan Dijk
Journal:  Curr Biol       Date:  2008-07-24       Impact factor: 10.834

10.  Age effects on measures of hearing disability.

Authors:  S Gordon-Salant; J Lantz; P Fitzgibbons
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  1994-06       Impact factor: 3.570

View more
  11 in total

1.  Spatial separation benefit for unaided and aided listening.

Authors:  Jayne B Ahlstrom; Amy R Horwitz; Judy R Dubno
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2014 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 3.570

2.  Short-term variability of pure-tone thresholds obtained with TDH-39P earphones.

Authors:  Gregory A Flamme; Mark R Stephenson; Kristy K Deiters; Amanda Hessenauer; Devon K VanGessel; Kyle Geda; Krista Wyllys; Kara D McGregor
Journal:  Int J Audiol       Date:  2014-03       Impact factor: 2.117

3.  What to Do When Cochlear Implant Users Plateau in Performance: a Pilot Study of Clinician-guided Aural Rehabilitation.

Authors:  Aaron C Moberly; Kara Vasil; Jodi Baxter; Christin Ray
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2018-10       Impact factor: 2.311

Review 4.  Cortical and Sensory Causes of Individual Differences in Selective Attention Ability Among Listeners With Normal Hearing Thresholds.

Authors:  Barbara Shinn-Cunningham
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2017-10-17       Impact factor: 2.297

5.  Sharper in the morning: Cognitive time of day effects revealed with high-frequency smartphone testing.

Authors:  Hannah Wilks; Andrew J Aschenbrenner; Brian A Gordon; David A Balota; Anne M Fagan; Erik Musiek; Joyce Balls-Berry; Tammie L S Benzinger; Carlos Cruchaga; John C Morris; Jason Hassenstab
Journal:  J Clin Exp Neuropsychol       Date:  2022-01-16       Impact factor: 2.283

6.  Contributions of Sensory Coding and Attentional Control to Individual Differences in Performance in Spatial Auditory Selective Attention Tasks.

Authors:  Lengshi Dai; Barbara G Shinn-Cunningham
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2016-10-20       Impact factor: 3.169

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

Authors:  Adam Dryden; Harriet A Allen; Helen Henshaw; Antje Heinrich
Journal:  Trends Hear       Date:  2017 Jan-Dec       Impact factor: 3.293

8.  Time of Day and Hearing Aid Adoption.

Authors:  Gurjit Singh; Stefan Launer
Journal:  Trends Hear       Date:  2018 Jan-Dec       Impact factor: 3.293

Review 9.  Best Practices and Advice for Using Pupillometry to Measure Listening Effort: An Introduction for Those Who Want to Get Started.

Authors:  Matthew B Winn; Dorothea Wendt; Thomas Koelewijn; Stefanie E Kuchinsky
Journal:  Trends Hear       Date:  2018 Jan-Dec       Impact factor: 3.293

10.  Speech perception and quality of life of open-fit hearing aid users.

Authors:  Tatiana Manfrini Garcia; Regina Tangerino de Souza Jacob; Maria Fernanda Capoani Garcia Mondelli
Journal:  J Appl Oral Sci       Date:  2016 May-Jun       Impact factor: 2.698

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.