Literature DB >> 30978607

Linguistic, perceptual, and cognitive factors underlying musicians' benefits in noise-degraded speech perception.

Jessica Yoo1, Gavin M Bidelman2.   

Abstract

Previous studies have reported better speech-in-noise (SIN) recognition in musicians relative to nonmusicians while others have failed to observe this "musician SIN advantage." Here, we aimed to clarify equivocal findings and determine the most relevant perceptual and cognitive factors that do and do not account for musicians' benefits in SIN processing. We measured behavioral performance in musicians and nonmusicians on a battery of SIN recognition, auditory backward masking (a marker of attention), fluid intelligence (IQ), and working memory tasks. We found that musicians outperformed nonmusicians in SIN recognition but also demonstrated better performance in IQ, working memory, and attention. SIN advantages were restricted to more complex speech tasks featuring sentence-level recognition with speech-on-speech masking (i.e., QuickSIN) whereas no group differences were observed in non-speech simultaneous (noise-on-tone) masking. This suggests musicians' advantage is limited to cases where the noise interference is linguistic in nature. Correlations showed SIN scores were associated with working memory, reinforcing the importance of general cognition to degraded speech perception. Lastly, listeners' years of music training predicted auditory attention scores, working memory skills, general fluid intelligence, and SIN perception (i.e., QuickSIN scores), implying that extensive musical training enhances perceptual and cognitive skills. Overall, our results suggest (i) enhanced SIN recognition in musicians is due to improved parsing of competing linguistic signals rather than signal-in-noise extraction, per se, and (ii) cognitive factors (working memory, attention, IQ) at least partially drive musicians' SIN advantages.
Copyright © 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Auditory masking; Central auditory processing; Cocktail party listening; Experience-dependent plasticity; Speech-in-noise (SIN) perception

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30978607      PMCID: PMC6511496          DOI: 10.1016/j.heares.2019.03.021

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Hear Res        ISSN: 0378-5955            Impact factor:   3.208


  63 in total

1.  Music, the food of neuroscience?

Authors:  Robert Zatorre; James McGill
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2005-03-17       Impact factor: 49.962

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

3.  The impact of musicianship on the cortical mechanisms related to separating speech from background noise.

Authors:  Benjamin Rich Zendel; Charles-David Tremblay; Sylvie Belleville; Isabelle Peretz
Journal:  J Cogn Neurosci       Date:  2014-11-12       Impact factor: 3.225

4.  Long-term musical experience and auditory and visual perceptual abilities under adverse conditions.

Authors:  Esperanza M Anaya; David B Pisoni; William G Kronenberger
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2016-09       Impact factor: 1.840

5.  Evidence for age-related cochlear synaptopathy in humans unconnected to speech-in-noise intelligibility deficits.

Authors:  Peter T Johannesen; Byanka C Buzo; Enrique A Lopez-Poveda
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2019-01-24       Impact factor: 3.208

6.  Psychophysical auditory filter estimates reveal sharper cochlear tuning in musicians.

Authors:  Gavin M Bidelman; Jonathan M Schug; Skyler G Jennings; Shaum P Bhagat
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2014-07       Impact factor: 1.840

7.  Musical experience and the aging auditory system: implications for cognitive abilities and hearing speech in noise.

Authors:  Alexandra Parbery-Clark; Dana L Strait; Samira Anderson; Emily Hittner; Nina Kraus
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2011-05-11       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Influence of musical training on understanding voiced and whispered speech in noise.

Authors:  Dorea R Ruggles; Richard L Freyman; Andrew J Oxenham
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-01-28       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  The musician effect: does it persist under degraded pitch conditions of cochlear implant simulations?

Authors:  Christina D Fuller; John J Galvin; Bert Maat; Rolien H Free; Deniz Başkent
Journal:  Front Neurosci       Date:  2014-06-30       Impact factor: 4.677

10.  Musicians do not benefit from differences in fundamental frequency when listening to speech in competing speech backgrounds.

Authors:  Sara M K Madsen; Kelly L Whiteford; Andrew J Oxenham
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2017-10-03       Impact factor: 4.379

View more
  10 in total

1.  Plasticity in auditory categorization is supported by differential engagement of the auditory-linguistic network.

Authors:  Gavin M Bidelman; Breya Walker
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2019-07-13       Impact factor: 6.556

2.  Medical phenome of musicians: an investigation of health records collected on 9803 musically active individuals.

Authors:  Maria Niarchou; George T Lin; Miriam D Lense; Reyna L Gordon; Lea K Davis
Journal:  Ann N Y Acad Sci       Date:  2021-08-19       Impact factor: 6.499

3.  Auditory cortex is susceptible to lexical influence as revealed by informational vs. energetic masking of speech categorization.

Authors:  Jared A Carter; Gavin M Bidelman
Journal:  Brain Res       Date:  2021-02-23       Impact factor: 3.252

4.  The Microstructural Plasticity of the Arcuate Fasciculus Undergirds Improved Speech in Noise Perception in Musicians.

Authors:  Xiaonan Li; Robert J Zatorre; Yi Du
Journal:  Cereb Cortex       Date:  2021-07-29       Impact factor: 5.357

5.  Musical Experience Offsets Age-Related Decline in Understanding Speech-in-Noise: Type of Training Does Not Matter, Working Memory Is the Key.

Authors:  Lei Zhang; Xueying Fu; Dan Luo; Lidongsheng Xing; Yi Du
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2021 Mar/Apr       Impact factor: 3.562

6.  Autonomic Nervous System Correlates of Speech Categorization Revealed Through Pupillometry.

Authors:  Gwyneth A Lewis; Gavin M Bidelman
Journal:  Front Neurosci       Date:  2020-01-10       Impact factor: 4.677

7.  Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Combined With Listening to Preferred Music Alters Cortical Speech Processing in Older Adults.

Authors:  Gavin M Bidelman; Ricky Chow; Alix Noly-Gandon; Jennifer D Ryan; Karen L Bell; Rose Rizzi; Claude Alain
Journal:  Front Neurosci       Date:  2022-07-06       Impact factor: 5.152

8.  Auditory categorical processing for speech is modulated by inherent musical listening skills.

Authors:  Kelsey Mankel; Jacob Barber; Gavin M Bidelman
Journal:  Neuroreport       Date:  2020-01-27       Impact factor: 1.703

9.  Effects of Noise on the Behavioral and Neural Categorization of Speech.

Authors:  Gavin M Bidelman; Lauren C Bush; Alex M Boudreaux
Journal:  Front Neurosci       Date:  2020-02-27       Impact factor: 4.677

10.  Musical Sophistication and Speech Auditory-Motor Coupling: Easy Tests for Quick Answers.

Authors:  Johanna M Rimmele; Pius Kern; Christina Lubinus; Klaus Frieler; David Poeppel; M Florencia Assaneo
Journal:  Front Neurosci       Date:  2022-01-04       Impact factor: 4.677

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.