Mishearing as a Side Effect of Rational Language Comprehension in Noise

Abstract

Language comprehension in noise can sometimes lead to mishearing, due to the noise disrupting the speech signal. Some of the difficulties in dealing with the noisy signal can be alleviated by drawing on the context – indeed, top-down predictability has shown to facilitate speech comprehension in noise. Previous studies have furthermore shown that strong reliance on the top-down predictions can lead to increased rates of mishearing, especially in older adults, which are attributed to general deficits in cognitive control in older adults. We here propose that the observed mishearing may be a simple consequence of rational language processing in noise. It should not be related to failure on the side of the older comprehenders, but instead would be predicted by rational processing accounts. To test this hypothesis, we extend earlier studies by running an online listening experiment with younger and older adults, carefully controlling the target and direct competitor in our stimuli. We show that mishearing is directly related to the perceptibility of the signal. We furthermore add an analysis of wrong responses, which shows that results are at odds with the idea that participants overly strongly rely on context in this task, as most false answers are indeed close to the speech signal, and not to the semantics of the context.

Using Eye-Tracking to Investigate an Activation-Based Account of False Hearing in Younger and Older Adults

“…In fact, we see the findings from Van Os et al (2021) as complementary to the current results. The rational comprehension account suggests that age differences in misperceptions or false hearing result because older adults, rationally, rely on context to a greater extent than younger adults.…”

“…In contrast, under more difficult listening conditions, activation of targets and competitors will be more similar, and correct identification will require increased inhibition of competitors. Thus, both rational comprehension and inhibitory deficit accounts would predict increased false hearing (or misperceptions) with less favorable SNRs and more difficult phonetic discriminations –exactly the pattern reported by Van Os et al (2021) and by Rogers et al (2012) in their study of false hearing as a function of SNR.…”

“…In contrast to claims made by Van Os et al (2021) , however, finding that mishearing (the term used by Van Os et al, 2021 ) or false hearing (the term used in prior studies; Rogers et al, 2012 ; Sommers et al, 2015 ; Failes et al, 2020 ) varies inversely with access to acoustic cues is entirely consistent with an inhibition-based account of false hearing. Recall that activation-competition models of spoken word recognition ( Luce and Pisoni, 1998 ; Gaskell and Marslen-Wilson, 2002 ) propose that activation of a particular lexical item is directly proportional to the match between the incoming speech signal and stored lexical representations.…”

“…Recently, Van Os et al (2021) have argued against the contribution of cognitive declines, particularly inhibitory abilities, as contributing to either age or individual differences in false hearing. Specifically, using open-set responding and sentence materials similar to those of Sommers et al (2015) , Van Os et al reported that both older and younger adults misperceived sentence-final items as consistent with a preceding context.…”

Rational speech comprehension: Interaction between predictability, acoustic signal, and noise

“…As expected, we find a main effect of noise, with more correct responses in quiet than in either type of background noise. This can be seen as a control condition, replicating various previous experimental findings (Kalikow et al, 1977;Gordon-Salant, 1985;Phatak et al, 2008;Van Os et al, 2021). Differences between babble and white noise occurred in interaction with the type of sound contrast (for detailed discussion, see below).…”