Dopamine receptor D4 (DRD4) gene modulates the influence of informational masking on speech recognition

Abstract

Listeners vary substantially in their ability to recognize speech in noisy environments. Here we examined the role of genetic variation on individual differences in speech recognition in various noise backgrounds. Background noise typically varies in the levels of energetic masking (EM) and informational masking (IM) imposed on target speech. Relative to EM, release from IM is hypothesized to place greater demand on executive function to selectively attend to target speech while ignoring competing noises. Recent evidence suggests that the long allele variant in exon III of the DRD4 gene, primarily expressed in the prefrontal cortex, may be associated with enhanced selective attention to goal-relevant high-priority information even in the face of interference. We investigated the extent to which this polymorphism is associated with speech recognition in IM and EM conditions. In an unscreened adult sample (Experiment 1) and a larger screened replication sample (Experiment 2), we demonstrate that individuals with the DRD4 long variant show better recognition performance in noise conditions involving significant IM, but not in EM conditions. In Experiment 2, we also obtained neuropsychological measures to assess the underlying mechanisms. Mediation analyses revealed that this listening condition-specific advantage was mediated by enhanced executive attention/working memory capacity in individuals with the long allele variant. These findings suggest that DRD4 may contribute specifically to individual differences in speech recognition ability in noise conditions that place demands on executive function.

Autonomic Nervous System Responses During Perception of Masked Speech may Reflect Constructs other than Subjective Listening Effort

“…In addition, demands on working memory likely increase, as listeners probably retain some of the content of the masking signal in working memory and this must subsequently be selectively inhibited at the lexical level ( Tun et al, 2002 ; Van Engen and Bradlow, 2007 ; Cooke et al, 2008 ; Mattys et al, 2009 ; Dekerle et al, 2014 ). Neuropsychological and genetic studies further suggest that populations that are predisposed to show poorer selective attention, as indexed either by increased degree of depressive symptoms ( Chandrasekaran et al, 2015 ) or genetic markers associated with poorer executive function ( Xie et al, 2015 ) experience greater interference in conditions that emphasize informational masking as compared to those involving primarily energetic masking.…”

The Downside of Greater Lexical Influences: Selectively Poorer Speech Perception in Noise

“…For instance, listeners are often required to attend selectively to a talker when there are competing talkers in the background. This well-known "cocktail-party" phenomenon (Cherry, 1953) presents a formidable computational challenge to the brain on a daily basis (Mesgarani & Chang, 2012;Xie, Maddox, Knopik, McGeary, & Chandrasekaran, 2015). Previous studies examining the dynamics of speech-in-speech processing have focused on masker properties, such as similarities in voice features between target and masking talkers (e.g., Brouwer, Van Engen, Calandruccio, & Bradlow, 2012;Brungart, Simpson, Ericson, & Scott, 2001), the impact of increasing the number of masking talkers (e.g., Freyman, Balakrishnan, & Helfer, 2004;Simpson & Cooke, 2005), and the spatial separation of target from masker (e.g., Freyman, Balakrishnan, & Helfer, 2001;Li, Daneman, Qi, & Schneider, 2004).…”

“…Previous studies examining the dynamics of speech-in-speech processing have focused on masker properties, such as similarities in voice features between target and masking talkers (e.g., Brouwer, Van Engen, Calandruccio, & Bradlow, 2012;Brungart, Simpson, Ericson, & Scott, 2001), the impact of increasing the number of masking talkers (e.g., Freyman, Balakrishnan, & Helfer, 2004;Simpson & Cooke, 2005), and the spatial separation of target from masker (e.g., Freyman, Balakrishnan, & Helfer, 2001;Li, Daneman, Qi, & Schneider, 2004). Recent studies have documented significant individual differences in speech-in-speech processing ability that relate to listener characteristics, such as working memory or neurocognitive profiles, for cocktail-party-like scenarios (e.g., Xie et al, 2015;Zekveld, Rudner, Johnsrude, & Rönnberg, 2013). These studies have collectively indicated that individual differences in cognitive processing may relate to speech processing ability in conditions that require listeners to ignore irrelevant linguistic information in the background (e.g., Anderson, White-Schwoch, Parbery-Clark, & Kraus, 2013;Chandrasekaran, Van Engen, Xie, Beevers, & Maddox, 2015;Xie et al, 2015;Zekveld, Rudner, Johnsrude, & Rönnberg, 2013).…”

“…Recent studies have documented significant individual differences in speech-in-speech processing ability that relate to listener characteristics, such as working memory or neurocognitive profiles, for cocktail-party-like scenarios (e.g., Xie et al, 2015;Zekveld, Rudner, Johnsrude, & Rönnberg, 2013). These studies have collectively indicated that individual differences in cognitive processing may relate to speech processing ability in conditions that require listeners to ignore irrelevant linguistic information in the background (e.g., Anderson, White-Schwoch, Parbery-Clark, & Kraus, 2013;Chandrasekaran, Van Engen, Xie, Beevers, & Maddox, 2015;Xie et al, 2015;Zekveld, Rudner, Johnsrude, & Rönnberg, 2013). Despite the fact that heightened lexical interferences from competing talkers characterize speechin-speech listening conditions, the extent to which individual differences in susceptibility to lexical influences impact speech-in-speech processing has not been systematically examined, and will be a focus of the current study.…”

Perception in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder

“…Research has shown that speech recognition thresholds are related to higher cognitive functions, such as working memory and attention (Lunner 2003;Xie et al 2015). Given that patients with ADHD often experience working memory and attention problems, it may be speculated that lower speech recognition thresholds in ADHD are related to deficits in higher cognitive functions.…”