Cognitive functions and speech-recognition-in-noise were evaluated with a cognitive test battery, assessing response inhibition using the Hayling task, working memory capacity (WMC) and verbal information processing, and an auditory test of speech recognition. The cognitive tests were performed in silence whereas the speech recognition task was presented in noise. Thirty young normally-hearing individuals participated in the study. The aim of the study was to investigate one executive function, response inhibition, and whether it is related to individual working memory capacity (WMC), and how speech-recognition-in-noise relates to WMC and inhibitory control. The results showed a significant difference between initiation and response inhibition, suggesting that the Hayling task taps cognitive activity responsible for executive control. Our findings also suggest that high verbal ability was associated with better performance in the Hayling task. We also present findings suggesting that individuals who perform well on tasks involving response inhibition, and WMC, also perform well on a speech-in-noise task. Our findings indicate that capacity to resist semantic interference can be used to predict performance on speech-in-noise tasks.

No abstract

Purpose The study aimed to investigate the relationship between speech recognition in noise, age, hearing ability, self-rated listening effort, inhibitory control (measured with the Swedish Hayling task), and working memory capacity (WMC; measured with the Reading Span test). Two different speech materials were used: the Hagerman test with low semantic context and Hearing in Noise Test sentences with high semantic context, masked with either energetic or informational maskers. Method A mixed design was used. Twenty-four young normally hearing ( M age = 25.6 years) and 24 older, for their age, normally hearing individuals ( M age = 60.6 years) participated in the study. Speech recognition in noise in both speech materials and self-rated effort in all four background maskers were correlated with inhibitory control and WMC. A linear mixed-effects model was set up to assess differences between the two different speech materials, the four different maskers used in the study, and if age and hearing ability affected performance in the speech materials or the various background noises. Results Results showed that high WMC was related to lower scores of self-rated listening effort for informational maskers, as well as better performance in speech recognition in noise when informational maskers were used. The linear mixed-effects model revealed differences in performance between the low-context and the high-context speech materials, and the various maskers used. Lastly, inhibitory control had some impact on performance in the low-context speech material when masked with an informational masker. Conclusion Different background noises, especially informational maskers, affect speech recognition and self-rated listening effort differently depending on age, hearing ability, and individual variation in WMC and inhibitory control.