How Hearing Impairment Affects Sentence Comprehension: Using Eye Fixations to Investigate the Duration of Speech Processing

Overview

Journal Trends Hear

Specialty Otorhinolaryngology

Date 2015 Apr 26

PMID 25910503

Citations 22

Authors

Dorothea Wendt

Birger Kollmeier

Thomas Brand

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

The main objective of this study was to investigate the extent to which hearing impairment influences the duration of sentence processing. An eye-tracking paradigm is introduced that provides an online measure of how hearing impairment prolongs processing of linguistically complex sentences; this measure uses eye fixations recorded while the participant listens to a sentence. Eye fixations toward a target picture (which matches the aurally presented sentence) were measured in the presence of a competitor picture. Based on the recorded eye fixations, the single target detection amplitude, which reflects the tendency of the participant to fixate the target picture, was used as a metric to estimate the duration of sentence processing. The single target detection amplitude was calculated for sentence structures with different levels of linguistic complexity and for different listening conditions: in quiet and in two different noise conditions. Participants with hearing impairment spent more time processing sentences, even at high levels of speech intelligibility. In addition, the relationship between the proposed online measure and listener-specific factors, such as hearing aid use and cognitive abilities, was investigated. Longer processing durations were measured for participants with hearing impairment who were not accustomed to using a hearing aid. Moreover, significant correlations were found between sentence processing duration and individual cognitive abilities (such as working memory capacity or susceptibility to interference). These findings are discussed with respect to audiological applications.

Citing Articles

Assessment of Speech Processing and Listening Effort Associated With Speech-on-Speech Masking Using the Visual World Paradigm and Pupillometry.

Abdel-Latif K, Koelewijn T, Baskent D, Meister H Trends Hear. 2025; 29():23312165241306091.

PMID: 39800920 PMC: 11726529. DOI: 10.1177/23312165241306091.

Syntactic complexity differentially affects auditory sentence comprehension performance for individuals with age-related hearing loss.

Shin J, Noh S, Park J, Sung J Front Psychol. 2023; 14:1264994.

PMID: 37965654 PMC: 10641445. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1264994.

Is there an influence of perceptual or cognitive impairment on complex sentence processing in hearing aid users?.

Wagner L, Werle A, Hoffmann A, Rahne T, Fengler A PLoS One. 2023; 18(9):e0291832.

PMID: 37768903 PMC: 10538791. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0291832.

Comparing Scores on the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test and Receptive One-Word Picture Vocabulary Test in Preschoolers With and Without Hearing Loss.

Ingvalson E, Perry L, VanDam M, Grieco-Calub T Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2023; 32(4):1610-1619.

PMID: 37276459 PMC: 10473386. DOI: 10.1044/2023_AJSLP-22-00352.

Neural Mechanisms Underlying the Processing of Complex Sentences: An fMRI Study.

Vogelzang M, Thiel C, Rosemann S, Rieger J, Ruigendijk E Neurobiol Lang (Camb). 2023; 1(2):226-248.

PMID: 37213656 PMC: 10158620. DOI: 10.1162/nol_a_00011.

References

Gatehouse S . The time course and magnitude of perceptual acclimatization to frequency responses: evidence from monaural fitting of hearing aids. J Acoust Soc Am. 1992; 92(3):1258-68. DOI: 10.1121/1.403921. View

Wagener K, Josvassen J, Ardenkjaer R . Design, optimization and evaluation of a Danish sentence test in noise. Int J Audiol. 2003; 42(1):10-7. DOI: 10.3109/14992020309056080. View

Zekveld A, Kramer S, Festen J . Cognitive load during speech perception in noise: the influence of age, hearing loss, and cognition on the pupil response. Ear Hear. 2011; 32(4):498-510. DOI: 10.1097/AUD.0b013e31820512bb. View

Altmann G . Ambiguity in sentence processing. Trends Cogn Sci. 2011; 2(4):146-52. DOI: 10.1016/s1364-6613(98)01153-x. View

Schneider B, Daneman M, Pichora-Fuller M . Listening in aging adults: from discourse comprehension to psychoacoustics. Can J Exp Psychol. 2002; 56(3):139-52. DOI: 10.1037/h0087392. View

May C, Hasher L, Kane M . The role of interference in memory span. Mem Cognit. 1999; 27(5):759-67. DOI: 10.3758/bf03198529. View

Just M, Carpenter P . A capacity theory of comprehension: individual differences in working memory. Psychol Rev. 1992; 99(1):122-49. DOI: 10.1037/0033-295x.99.1.122. View

Wendt D, Brand T, Kollmeier B . An eye-tracking paradigm for analyzing the processing time of sentences with different linguistic complexities. PLoS One. 2014; 9(6):e100186. PMC: 4065036. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0100186. View

Wingfield A, McCoy S, Peelle J, Tun P, Cox L . Effects of adult aging and hearing loss on comprehension of rapid speech varying in syntactic complexity. J Am Acad Audiol. 2006; 17(7):487-97. DOI: 10.3766/jaaa.17.7.4. View

10.

Dreschler W, Verschuure H, Ludvigsen C, Westermann S . ICRA noises: artificial noise signals with speech-like spectral and temporal properties for hearing instrument assessment. International Collegium for Rehabilitative Audiology. Audiology. 2001; 40(3):148-57. View

11.

Kim S, Kim M, Chun M . Concurrent working memory load can reduce distraction. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005; 102(45):16524-9. PMC: 1283430. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0505454102. View

12.

Mirman D, Yee E, Blumstein S, Magnuson J . Theories of spoken word recognition deficits in aphasia: evidence from eye-tracking and computational modeling. Brain Lang. 2011; 117(2):53-68. PMC: 3076537. DOI: 10.1016/j.bandl.2011.01.004. View

13.

Uslar V, Carroll R, Hanke M, Hamann C, Ruigendijk E, Brand T . Development and evaluation of a linguistically and audiologically controlled sentence intelligibility test. J Acoust Soc Am. 2013; 134(4):3039-56. DOI: 10.1121/1.4818760. View

14.

Carroll R, Ruigendijk E . The effects of syntactic complexity on processing sentences in noise. J Psycholinguist Res. 2012; 42(2):139-59. DOI: 10.1007/s10936-012-9213-7. View

15.

Mirman D, Dixon J, Magnuson J . Statistical and computational models of the visual world paradigm: Growth curves and individual differences. J Mem Lang. 2008; 59(4):475-494. PMC: 2593828. DOI: 10.1016/j.jml.2007.11.006. View

16.

Pichora-Fuller M, Schneider B, Daneman M . How young and old adults listen to and remember speech in noise. J Acoust Soc Am. 1995; 97(1):593-608. DOI: 10.1121/1.412282. View

17.

Wagener K, Brand T, Kollmeier B . The role of silent intervals for sentence intelligibility in fluctuating noise in hearing-impaired listeners. Int J Audiol. 2006; 45(1):26-33. DOI: 10.1080/14992020500243851. View

18.

Nichols T, Holmes A . Nonparametric permutation tests for functional neuroimaging: a primer with examples. Hum Brain Mapp. 2001; 15(1):1-25. PMC: 6871862. DOI: 10.1002/hbm.1058. View

19.

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

20.

Tun P, McCoy S, Wingfield A . Aging, hearing acuity, and the attentional costs of effortful listening. Psychol Aging. 2009; 24(3):761-6. PMC: 2773464. DOI: 10.1037/a0014802. View