How Linguistic Closure and Verbal Working Memory Relate to Speech Recognition in Noise—A Review

Abstract

The ability to recognize masked speech, commonly measured with a speech reception threshold (SRT) test, is associated with cognitive processing abilities. Two cognitive factors frequently assessed in speech recognition research are the capacity of working memory (WM), measured by means of a reading span (Rspan) or listening span (Lspan) test, and the ability to read masked text (linguistic closure), measured by the text reception threshold (TRT). The current article provides a review of recent hearing research that examined the relationship of TRT and WM span to SRTs in various maskers. Furthermore, modality differences in WM capacity assessed with the Rspan compared to the Lspan test were examined and related to speech recognition abilities in an experimental study with young adults with normal hearing (NH). Span scores were strongly associated with each other, but were higher in the auditory modality. The results of the reviewed studies suggest that TRT and WM span are related to each other, but differ in their relationships with SRT performance. In NH adults of middle age or older, both TRT and Rspan were associated with SRTs in speech maskers, whereas TRT better predicted speech recognition in fluctuating nonspeech maskers. The associations with SRTs in steady-state noise were inconclusive for both measures. WM span was positively related to benefit from contextual information in speech recognition, but better TRTs related to less interference from unrelated cues. Data for individuals with impaired hearing are limited, but larger WM span seems to give a general advantage in various listening situations.

Exploring Cognitive Spare Capacity : Executive Processing of Degraded Speech

“…Recent work on memory for sentences heard in noise shows that memory performance correlates with WMC for individuals, both with normal hearing (Rönnberg, Rudner, Lunner & Stenfelt, 2014) and with hearing loss (Ng, Rudner, Lunner, Pedersen & Rönnberg, 2013). In two separate reviews, analyzing twenty studies (Akeroyd, 2008) and twenty-one studies (Besser et al, 2013), it was found that in most of the studies the speech recognition in noise was most reliably predicted by WMC as measured by the reading span test (Daneman & Carpenter, 1980;Rönnberg, Arlinger, Lyxell & Kinnefors, 1989). In the domain of hearing aids, it has been shown that WMC correlates with aided speech recognition in noise performance (Foo, Rudner, Rönnberg & Lunner, 2007;Gatehouse, Naylor & Elberling, 2003, 2006a, 2006bLunner, 2003, Lunner andSundewall-Thorén, 2007).…”

“…Besser et al, 2013;Mattys, et al, 2012). Furthermore, aging is associated with hearing loss (Pichora-Fuller & Singh, 2006).…”

“…Hence, the free recall tasks can be assumed to be loaded on memory but the executive function demands in such tasks are reduced. It has been argued that cognitive functions such as executive functions and linguistic closure ability are essential for higher level of cognitive functions needed in communication Besser et al, 2013). As the free recall task does not operationalize such cognitive processes, it may not be considered as evaluating CSC for speech understanding.…”

“…In adverse listening conditions, listeners use their cognitive resources, especially the working memory, to recover the speech signal that is lost in adverse listening conditions. It has been suggested that the cognitive processes used for this recovery of the speech signal include attentional resources such as executive functions (Mattys et al, 2012) and other cognitive resources such as access to previous information stored in LTM and linguistic closure ability (Besser, Koelewijn, Zekveld, Kramer & Festen, 2013). Therefore, in order to understand the processes involved in speech understanding, an approach of integrating theories from the field of cognitive psychology and audiology is desired.…”

Assessing cognitive spare capacity as a measure of listening effort using the Auditory Inference Span Test

“…These processes are called top-down processes, while the perception of sound and the ability to hear is rather referred to as bottom-up processes (Avivi-Reich, Daneman, & Schneider, 2014;Besser, Koelewijn, Zekveld, Kramer, & Festen, 2013;Davis & Johnsrude, 2007;Zekveld, Heslenfeld, Festen, & Schoonhoven, 2006). For example, the acoustic analysis and intensity coding of speech are, more or less, unconscious and automatic bottom-up processes, while linguistic processes and the use of internal speech representations to facilitate speech identification are top-down processes (Zekveld et al, 2006).…”