» Articles » PMID: 21730859

A Neural Basis of Speech-in-noise Perception in Older Adults

Overview
Journal Ear Hear
Date 2011 Jul 7
PMID 21730859
Citations 88
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Objective: We investigated a neural basis of speech-in-noise perception in older adults. Hearing loss, the third most common chronic condition in older adults, is most often manifested by difficulty understanding speech in background noise. This trouble with understanding speech in noise, which occurs even in individuals who have normal-hearing thresholds, may arise, in part, from age-related declines in central auditory processing of the temporal and spectral components of speech. We hypothesized that older adults with poorer speech-in-noise (SIN) perception demonstrate impairments in the subcortical representation of speech.

Design: In all participants (28 adults, age 60-73 yr), average hearing thresholds calculated from 500 to 4000 Hz were ≤ 25 dB HL. The participants were evaluated behaviorally with the Hearing in Noise Test (HINT) and neurophysiologically using speech-evoked auditory brainstem responses recorded in quiet and in background noise. The participants were divided based on their HINT scores into top and bottom performing groups that were matched for audiometric thresholds and intelligent quotient. We compared brainstem responses in the two groups, specifically, the average spectral magnitudes of the neural response and the degree to which background noise affected response morphology.

Results: In the quiet condition, the bottom SIN group had reduced neural representation of the fundamental frequency of the speech stimulus and an overall reduction in response magnitude. In the noise condition, the bottom SIN group demonstrated greater disruption in noise, reflecting reduction in neural synchrony. The role of brainstem timing is particularly evident in the strong relationship between SIN perception and quiet-to-noise response correlations. All physiologic measures correlated with SIN perception.

Conclusion: Adults in the bottom SIN group differed from the audiometrically matched top SIN group in how speech was neurally encoded. The strength of subcortical encoding of the fundamental frequency appears to be a factor in successful speech-in-noise perception in older adults. Given the limitations of amplification, our results suggest the need for inclusion of auditory training to strengthen central auditory processing in older adults with SIN perception difficulties.

Citing Articles

Deciphering Compromised Speech-in-Noise Intelligibility in Older Listeners: The Role of Cochlear Synaptopathy.

Garrett M, Vasilkov V, Mauermann M, Devolder P, Wilson J, Gonzales L eNeuro. 2025; 12(2).

PMID: 39788732 PMC: 11842038. DOI: 10.1523/ENEURO.0182-24.2024.


Older adults' recognition of medical terminology in hospital noise.

Bent T, Baese-Berk M, Puckett B, Ryherd E, Perry S, Manley N Cogn Res Princ Implic. 2024; 9(1):79.

PMID: 39636386 PMC: 11621266. DOI: 10.1186/s41235-024-00606-1.


Processing of Visual Speech Cues in Speech-in-Noise Comprehension Depends on Working Memory Capacity and Enhances Neural Speech Tracking in Older Adults With Hearing Impairment.

Frei V, Schmitt R, Meyer M, Giroud N Trends Hear. 2024; 28:23312165241287622.

PMID: 39444375 PMC: 11520018. DOI: 10.1177/23312165241287622.


Individual differences in the perception of phonetic category structure predict speech-in-noise performance.

Myers E, Phillips M, Skoe E J Acoust Soc Am. 2024; 156(3):1707-1719.

PMID: 39269161 PMC: 11401644. DOI: 10.1121/10.0028583.


Effects of Temporal Processing on Speech-in-Noise Perception in Middle-Aged Adults.

McFarlane K, Sanchez J Biology (Basel). 2024; 13(6).

PMID: 38927251 PMC: 11200514. DOI: 10.3390/biology13060371.


References
1.
Burger R, Pollak G . Analysis of the role of inhibition in shaping responses to sinusoidally amplitude-modulated signals in the inferior colliculus. J Neurophysiol. 1998; 80(4):1686-701. DOI: 10.1152/jn.1998.80.4.1686. View

2.
Galbraith G, Arbagey P, Branski R, Comerci N, Rector P . Intelligible speech encoded in the human brain stem frequency-following response. Neuroreport. 1995; 6(17):2363-7. DOI: 10.1097/00001756-199511270-00021. View

3.
Skoe E, Nicol T, Kraus N . Cross-phaseogram: objective neural index of speech sound differentiation. J Neurosci Methods. 2011; 196(2):308-17. PMC: 3056886. DOI: 10.1016/j.jneumeth.2011.01.020. View

4.
Harris K, Mills J, He N, Dubno J . Age-related differences in sensitivity to small changes in frequency assessed with cortical evoked potentials. Hear Res. 2008; 243(1-2):47-56. PMC: 2613249. DOI: 10.1016/j.heares.2008.05.005. View

5.
Byrne D, Dillon H . The National Acoustic Laboratories' (NAL) new procedure for selecting the gain and frequency response of a hearing aid. Ear Hear. 1986; 7(4):257-65. DOI: 10.1097/00003446-198608000-00007. View