Literature DB >> 30325518

How does aging affect recognition of spectrally degraded speech?

Aaron C Moberly1, Kara J Vasil1, Taylor L Wucinich1,2, Natalie Safdar1,2, Lauren Boyce1, Christina Roup2, Rachael Frush Holt2, Oliver F Adunka1, Irina Castellanos1, Valeriy Shafiro3, Derek M Houston1, David B Pisoni4.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: Cochlear implants (CIs) restore auditory sensation to patients with moderate-to-profound sensorineural hearing loss. However, the benefits to speech recognition vary considerably among patients. Advancing age contributes to this variability in postlingual adult CI users. Similarly, older individuals with normal hearing (NH) perform more poorly on tasks of recognition of spectrally degraded speech. The overarching hypothesis of this study was that the detrimental effects of advancing age on speech recognition can be attributed both to declines in auditory spectral resolution as well as declines in cognitive functions. STUDY
DESIGN: Case-control study.
METHODS: Speech recognition was assessed in CI users (in the clear) and NH controls (spectrally degraded using noise-vocoding), along with auditory spectral resolution using the Spectral-Temporally Modulated Ripple Test. Cognitive skills were assessed using nonauditory visual measures of working memory, inhibitory control, speed of lexical/phonological access, nonverbal reasoning, and perceptual closure. Linear regression models were tested for mediation to explain aging effects on speech recognition performance.
RESULTS: For both groups, older age predicted poorer sentence and word recognition. The detrimental effects of advancing age on speech recognition were partially mediated by declines in spectral resolution and in some measures of cognitive function.
CONCLUSIONS: Advancing age contributes to poorer recognition of degraded speech for CI users and NH controls through declines in both auditory spectral resolution and cognitive functions. Findings suggest that improvements in spectral resolution as well as cognitive improvements may serve as therapeutic targets to optimize CI speech recognition outcomes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3b Laryngoscope, 2018.
© 2018 The American Laryngological, Rhinological and Otological Society, Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Aging; cochlear implants; cognition; spectral resolution; speech perception

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30325518      PMCID: PMC6572764          DOI: 10.1002/lary.27457

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Laryngoscope        ISSN: 0023-852X            Impact factor:   3.325


  44 in total

1.  Inhibitory processes and spoken word recognition in young and older adults: the interaction of lexical competition and semantic context.

Authors:  M S Sommers; S M Danielson
Journal:  Psychol Aging       Date:  1999-09

2.  The Raven's progressive matrices: change and stability over culture and time.

Authors:  J Raven
Journal:  Cogn Psychol       Date:  2000-08       Impact factor: 3.468

3.  "Mini-mental state". A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician.

Authors:  M F Folstein; S E Folstein; P R McHugh
Journal:  J Psychiatr Res       Date:  1975-11       Impact factor: 4.791

4.  Development of materials for speech audiometry.

Authors:  I J HIRSH; H DAVIS; S R SILVERMAN; E G REYNOLDS; E ELDERT; R W BENSON
Journal:  J Speech Hear Disord       Date:  1952-09

5.  Criteria of candidacy for unilateral cochlear implantation in postlingually deafened adults I: theory and measures of effectiveness.

Authors: 
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2004-08       Impact factor: 3.570

Review 6.  Language and the aging brain: patterns of neural compensation revealed by functional brain imaging.

Authors:  Arthur Wingfield; Murray Grossman
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2006-12       Impact factor: 2.714

Review 7.  Effects of age on auditory and cognitive processing: implications for hearing aid fitting and audiologic rehabilitation.

Authors:  M Kathleen Pichora-Fuller; Gurjit Singh
Journal:  Trends Amplif       Date:  2006-03

8.  Auditory and nonauditory factors affecting speech reception in noise by older listeners.

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

9.  Measures of working memory span and verbal rehearsal speed in deaf children after cochlear implantation.

Authors:  David B Pisoni; Miranda Cleary
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2003-02       Impact factor: 3.570

10.  The role of early language experience in the development of speech perception and phonological processing abilities: evidence from 5-year-olds with histories of otitis media with effusion and low socioeconomic status.

Authors:  Susan Nittrouer; Lisa Thuente Burton
Journal:  J Commun Disord       Date:  2005 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 2.288

View more
  10 in total

1.  How Does Nonverbal Reasoning Affect Sentence Recognition in Adults with Cochlear Implants and Normal-Hearing Peers?

Authors:  Aaron C Moberly; Jameson K Mattingly; Irina Castellanos
Journal:  Audiol Neurootol       Date:  2019-07-02       Impact factor: 1.854

2.  Bottom-Up Signal Quality Impacts the Role of Top-Down Cognitive-Linguistic Processing During Speech Recognition by Adults with Cochlear Implants.

Authors:  Aaron C Moberly; Jessica H Lewis; Kara J Vasil; Christin Ray; Terrin N Tamati
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2021-12-01       Impact factor: 2.311

3.  Neural Adaptation of the Electrically Stimulated Auditory Nerve Is Not Affected by Advanced Age in Postlingually Deafened, Middle-aged, and Elderly Adult Cochlear Implant Users.

Authors:  Shuman He; Jeffrey Skidmore; Sara Conroy; William J Riggs; Brittney L Carter; Ruili Xie
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2022-01-03       Impact factor: 3.562

4.  Comprehensive auditory rehabilitation in adults receiving cochlear implants: A pilot study.

Authors:  Aaron C Moberly; Kara Vasil; Jodi Baxter; Brett Klamer; David Kline; Christin Ray
Journal:  Laryngoscope Investig Otolaryngol       Date:  2020-09-01

5.  High- and Low-Performing Adult Cochlear Implant Users on High-Variability Sentence Recognition: Differences in Auditory Spectral Resolution and Neurocognitive Functioning.

Authors:  Terrin N Tamati; Christin Ray; Kara J Vasil; David B Pisoni; Aaron C Moberly
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  2020-06-09       Impact factor: 1.664

6.  Forward Digit Span and Word Familiarity Do Not Correlate With Differences in Speech Recognition in Individuals With Cochlear Implants After Accounting for Auditory Resolution.

Authors:  Adam K Bosen; Victoria A Sevich; Shauntelle A Cannon
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2021-07-12       Impact factor: 2.297

7.  A Longitudinal Comparison of Environmental Sound Recognition in Adults With Hearing Aids Before and After Cochlear Implantation.

Authors:  Michael S Harris; Aaron C Moberly; Ben L Hamel; Kara Vasil; Christina L Runge; William J Riggs; Valeriy Shafiro
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2021-03-02       Impact factor: 2.674

Review 8.  A surgeon-scientist's perspective and review of cognitive-linguistic contributions to adult cochlear implant outcomes.

Authors:  Aaron C Moberly
Journal:  Laryngoscope Investig Otolaryngol       Date:  2020-11-06

9.  Lexical Effects on the Perceived Clarity of Noise-Vocoded Speech in Younger and Older Listeners.

Authors:  Terrin N Tamati; Victoria A Sevich; Emily M Clausing; Aaron C Moberly
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2022-04-01

10.  Speech Recognition as a Function of Age and Listening Experience in Adult Cochlear Implant Users.

Authors:  Alexander T Murr; Michael W Canfarotta; Brendan P O'Connell; Emily Buss; English R King; Andrea L Bucker; Sarah A Dillon; Meredith A Rooth; Matthew M Dedmon; Kevin D Brown; Margaret T Dillon
Journal:  Laryngoscope       Date:  2021-05-27       Impact factor: 2.970

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.