Literature DB >> 25497692

Dopamine receptor D4 (DRD4) gene modulates the influence of informational masking on speech recognition.

Zilong Xie1, W Todd Maddox2, Valerie S Knopik3, John E McGeary4, Bharath Chandrasekaran5.   

Abstract

Listeners vary substantially in their ability to recognize speech in noisy environments. Here we examined the role of genetic variation on individual differences in speech recognition in various noise backgrounds. Background noise typically varies in the levels of energetic masking (EM) and informational masking (IM) imposed on target speech. Relative to EM, release from IM is hypothesized to place greater demand on executive function to selectively attend to target speech while ignoring competing noises. Recent evidence suggests that the long allele variant in exon III of the DRD4 gene, primarily expressed in the prefrontal cortex, may be associated with enhanced selective attention to goal-relevant high-priority information even in the face of interference. We investigated the extent to which this polymorphism is associated with speech recognition in IM and EM conditions. In an unscreened adult sample (Experiment 1) and a larger screened replication sample (Experiment 2), we demonstrate that individuals with the DRD4 long variant show better recognition performance in noise conditions involving significant IM, but not in EM conditions. In Experiment 2, we also obtained neuropsychological measures to assess the underlying mechanisms. Mediation analysis revealed that this listening condition-specific advantage was mediated by enhanced executive attention/working memory capacity in individuals with the long allele variant. These findings suggest that DRD4 may contribute specifically to individual differences in speech recognition ability in noise conditions that place demands on executive function.
Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  DRD4; Executive attention/working memory capacity; Individual difference; Informational masking; Speech perception

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25497692      PMCID: PMC4297728          DOI: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2014.12.013

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Neuropsychologia        ISSN: 0028-3932            Impact factor:   3.139


  83 in total

1.  Inverted-U dopamine D1 receptor actions on prefrontal neurons engaged in working memory.

Authors:  Susheel Vijayraghavan; Min Wang; Shari G Birnbaum; Graham V Williams; Amy F T Arnsten
Journal:  Nat Neurosci       Date:  2007-02-04       Impact factor: 24.884

2.  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

Review 3.  Working memory span tasks: A methodological review and user's guide.

Authors:  Andrew R A Conway; Michael J Kane; Michael F Bunting; D Zach Hambrick; Oliver Wilhelm; Randall W Engle
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2005-10

4.  Exact tests for Hardy-Weinberg proportions.

Authors:  William R Engels
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2009-09-21       Impact factor: 4.562

5.  Dopamine D4 receptor gene variation is associated with context-dependent attention for emotion stimuli.

Authors:  Tony T Wells; Christopher G Beevers; Valerie S Knopik; John E McGeary
Journal:  Int J Neuropsychopharmacol       Date:  2012-05-21       Impact factor: 5.176

6.  Profiles of verbal working memory growth predict speech and language development in children with cochlear implants.

Authors:  William G Kronenberger; David B Pisoni; Michael S Harris; Helena M Hoen; Huiping Xu; Richard T Miyamoto
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2012-12-28       Impact factor: 2.297

7.  Gene-environment interaction between dopamine receptor D4 7-repeat polymorphism and early maternal sensitivity predicts inattention trajectories across middle childhood.

Authors:  Daniel Berry; Kirby Deater-Deckard; Kathleen McCartney; Zhe Wang; Stephen A Petrill
Journal:  Dev Psychopathol       Date:  2013-05

8.  Age-related changes in listening effort for various types of masker noises.

Authors:  Jamie L Desjardins; Karen A Doherty
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2013 May-Jun       Impact factor: 3.570

9.  Recognition of accented and unaccented speech in different maskers by younger and older listeners.

Authors:  Sandra Gordon-Salant; Grace H Yeni-Komshian; Peter J Fitzgibbons; Julie I Cohen; Christopher Waldroup
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2013-07       Impact factor: 1.840

10.  Processing load induced by informational masking is related to linguistic abilities.

Authors:  Thomas Koelewijn; Adriana A Zekveld; Joost M Festen; Jerker Rönnberg; Sophia E Kramer
Journal:  Int J Otolaryngol       Date:  2012-10-03
View more
  7 in total

1.  Error patterns of native and non-native listeners' perception of speech in noise.

Authors:  Benjamin D Zinszer; Meredith Riggs; Rachel Reetzke; Bharath Chandrasekaran
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2019-02       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  The Downside of Greater Lexical Influences: Selectively Poorer Speech Perception in Noise.

Authors:  Boji P W Lam; Zilong Xie; Rachel Tessmer; Bharath Chandrasekaran
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2017-06-10       Impact factor: 2.297

3.  The Effect of Talker and Listener Depressive Symptoms on Speech Intelligibility.

Authors:  Hoyoung Yi; Rajka Smiljanic; Bharath Chandrasekaran
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2019-11-18       Impact factor: 2.297

4.  Cortical Gray Matter Loss, Augmented Vulnerability to Speech-on-Speech Masking, and Delusion in People With Schizophrenia.

Authors:  Chao Wu; Yingjun Zheng; Juanhua Li; Shenglin She; Hongjun Peng; Liang Li
Journal:  Front Psychiatry       Date:  2018-07-04       Impact factor: 4.157

5.  Impact of depression on speech perception in noise.

Authors:  Zilong Xie; Benjamin D Zinszer; Meredith Riggs; Christopher G Beevers; Bharath Chandrasekaran
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-08-15       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  Autonomic Nervous System Responses During Perception of Masked Speech may Reflect Constructs other than Subjective Listening Effort.

Authors:  Alexander L Francis; Megan K MacPherson; Bharath Chandrasekaran; Ann M Alvar
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2016-03-01

7.  The Association Between Genetic Variation in FOXP2 and Sensorimotor Control of Speech Production.

Authors:  Siyun Zhang; Jiangli Zhao; Zhiqiang Guo; Jeffery A Jones; Peng Liu; Hanjun Liu
Journal:  Front Neurosci       Date:  2018-09-20       Impact factor: 4.677

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.