Working Memory and Speech Recognition in Noise Under Ecologically Relevant Listening Conditions: Effects of Visual Cues and Noise Type Among Adults With Hearing Loss

Overview

Journal J Speech Lang Hear Res

Date 2017 Jul 27

PMID 28744550

Citations 7

Authors

Christi W Miller

Erin K Stewart

Yu-Hsiang Wu

Christopher Bishop

Ruth A Bentler

Kelly Tremblay

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

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.

Citing Articles

Immersive auditory-cognitive training improves speech-in-noise perception in older adults with varying hearing and working memory.

Frei V, Giroud N NPJ Sci Learn. 2025; 10(1):12.

PMID: 40055345 PMC: 11889142. DOI: 10.1038/s41539-025-00306-5.

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.

Preliminary Guidelines for Replacing Word-Recognition in Quiet With Speech in Noise Assessment in the Routine Audiologic Test Battery.

Fitzgerald M, Gianakas S, Qian Z, Losorelli S, Swanson A Ear Hear. 2023; 44(6):1548-1561.

PMID: 37703127 PMC: 10583951. DOI: 10.1097/AUD.0000000000001409.

Exploring neurocognitive factors and brain activation in adult cochlear implant recipients associated with speech perception outcomes-A scoping review.

Beckers L, Tromp N, Philips B, Mylanus E, Huinck W Front Neurosci. 2023; 17:1046669.

PMID: 36816114 PMC: 9932917. DOI: 10.3389/fnins.2023.1046669.

Communication with face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic for adults with hearing loss.

Poon B, Jenstad L Cogn Res Princ Implic. 2022; 7(1):24.

PMID: 35312877 PMC: 8935619. DOI: 10.1186/s41235-022-00376-8.

References

Helfer K, Freyman R . The role of visual speech cues in reducing energetic and informational masking. J Acoust Soc Am. 2005; 117(2):842-9. DOI: 10.1121/1.1836832. View

Ng E, Rudner M, Lunner T, Pedersen M, Ronnberg J . Effects of noise and working memory capacity on memory processing of speech for hearing-aid users. Int J Audiol. 2013; 52(7):433-41. DOI: 10.3109/14992027.2013.776181. View

Martin C, Mullennix J, Pisoni D, Summers W . Effects of talker variability on recall of spoken word lists. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1989; 15(4):676-84. PMC: 3510481. DOI: 10.1037//0278-7393.15.4.676. View

Wu Y, Bentler R . Impact of visual cues on directional benefit and preference: Part I--laboratory tests. Ear Hear. 2009; 31(1):22-34. DOI: 10.1097/AUD.0b013e3181bc767e. View

Baddeley A . The phonological loop and the irrelevant speech effect: some comments on Neath (2000). Psychon Bull Rev. 2000; 7(3):544-9. DOI: 10.3758/bf03214369. View

Fraser S, Gagne J, Alepins M, DuBois P . Evaluating the effort expended to understand speech in noise using a dual-task paradigm: the effects of providing visual speech cues. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2009; 53(1):18-33. DOI: 10.1044/1092-4388(2009/08-0140). View

Smeds K, Wolters F, Rung M . Estimation of Signal-to-Noise Ratios in Realistic Sound Scenarios. J Am Acad Audiol. 2015; 26(2):183-96. DOI: 10.3766/jaaa.26.2.7. View

George E, Zekveld A, Kramer S, Goverts S, Festen J, Houtgast T . Auditory and nonauditory factors affecting speech reception in noise by older listeners. J Acoust Soc Am. 2007; 121(4):2362-75. DOI: 10.1121/1.2642072. View

Van Engen K, Bradlow A . Sentence recognition in native- and foreign-language multi-talker background noise. J Acoust Soc Am. 2007; 121(1):519-26. PMC: 1850527. DOI: 10.1121/1.2400666. View

10.

Holube I, Fredelake S, Vlaming M, Kollmeier B . Development and analysis of an International Speech Test Signal (ISTS). Int J Audiol. 2010; 49(12):891-903. DOI: 10.3109/14992027.2010.506889. View

11.

Gordon-Salant S, Fitzgibbons P . Selected cognitive factors and speech recognition performance among young and elderly listeners. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 1997; 40(2):423-31. DOI: 10.1044/jslhr.4002.423. View

12.

Lunner T . Cognitive function in relation to hearing aid use. Int J Audiol. 2003; 42 Suppl 1:S49-58. DOI: 10.3109/14992020309074624. View

13.

Smith S, Pichora-Fuller M . Associations between speech understanding and auditory and visual tests of verbal working memory: effects of linguistic complexity, task, age, and hearing loss. Front Psychol. 2015; 6:1394. PMC: 4584991. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01394. View

14.

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

15.

Dubno J, Horwitz A, Ahlstrom J . Benefit of modulated maskers for speech recognition by younger and older adults with normal hearing. J Acoust Soc Am. 2002; 111(6):2897-907. DOI: 10.1121/1.1480421. View

16.

Ng E, Classon E, Larsby B, Arlinger S, Lunner T, Rudner M . Dynamic relation between working memory capacity and speech recognition in noise during the first 6 months of hearing aid use. Trends Hear. 2014; 18. PMC: 4271770. DOI: 10.1177/2331216514558688. View

17.

Nygaard L, Pisoni D . Talker-specific learning in speech perception. Percept Psychophys. 1998; 60(3):355-76. DOI: 10.3758/bf03206860. View

18.

. Speech understanding and aging. Working Group on Speech Understanding and Aging. Committee on Hearing, Bioacoustics, and Biomechanics, Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, National Research Council. J Acoust Soc Am. 1988; 83(3):859-95. View

19.

Chia E, Wang J, Rochtchina E, Cumming R, Newall P, Mitchell P . Hearing impairment and health-related quality of life: the Blue Mountains Hearing Study. Ear Hear. 2007; 28(2):187-95. DOI: 10.1097/AUD.0b013e31803126b6. View

20.

Fullgrabe C, Rosen S . On The (Un)importance of Working Memory in Speech-in-Noise Processing for Listeners with Normal Hearing Thresholds. Front Psychol. 2016; 7():1268. PMC: 5003928. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01268. View