Purpose: This study evaluated the relationship between working memory (WM) and speech recognition in noise with different noise types as well as in the presence of visual cues. Method: Seventy-six adults with bilateral, mild to moderately severe sensorineural hearing loss (mean age: 69 years) participated. Using a cross-sectional design, 2 measures of WM were taken: a reading span measure, and Word Auditory Recognition and Recall Measure (Smith, Pichora-Fuller, & Alexander, 2016). Speech recognition was measured with the Multi-Modal Lexical Sentence Test for Adults (Kirk et al., 2012) in steady-state noise and 4-talker babble, with and without visual cues. Testing was under unaided conditions. Results: A linear mixed model revealed visual cues and pure-tone average as the only significant predictors of Multi-Modal Lexical Sentence Test outcomes. Neither WM measure nor noise type showed a significant effect. Conclusion: The contribution of WM in explaining unaided speech recognition in noise was negligible and not influenced by noise type or visual cues. We anticipate that with audibility partially restored by hearing aids, the effects of WM will increase. For clinical practice to be affected, more significant effect sizes are needed.
Purpose: This study evaluated the relationship between working memory (WM) and speech recognition in noise with different noise types as well as in the presence of visual cues. Method: Seventy-six adults with bilateral, mild to moderately severe sensorineural hearing loss (mean age: 69 years) participated. Using a cross-sectional design, 2 measures of WM were taken: a reading span measure, and Word Auditory Recognition and Recall Measure (Smith, Pichora-Fuller, & Alexander, 2016). Speech recognition was measured with the Multi-Modal Lexical Sentence Test for Adults (Kirk et al., 2012) in steady-state noise and 4-talker babble, with and without visual cues. Testing was under unaided conditions. Results: A linear mixed model revealed visual cues and pure-tone average as the only significant predictors of Multi-Modal Lexical Sentence Test outcomes. Neither WM measure nor noise type showed a significant effect. Conclusion: The contribution of WM in explaining unaided speech recognition in noise was negligible and not influenced by noise type or visual cues. We anticipate that with audibility partially restored by hearing aids, the effects of WM will increase. For clinical practice to be affected, more significant effect sizes are needed.
Authors: Erwin L J George; Adriana A Zekveld; Sophia E Kramer; S Theo Goverts; Joost M Festen; Tammo Houtgast Journal: J Acoust Soc Am Date: 2007-04 Impact factor: 1.840
Authors: Elaine Hoi Ning Ng; Mary Rudner; Thomas Lunner; Michael Syskind Pedersen; Jerker Rönnberg Journal: Int J Audiol Date: 2013-04-04 Impact factor: 2.117