Recognition memory in noise for speech of varying intelligibility

Gilbert, Rachael C.; Chandrasekaran, Bharath; Smiljanić, Rajka

doi:10.1121/1.4838975

Cited by 38 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 64 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…They interpreted this finding as reflecting stronger linguistic encoding when less processing was required to accurately identify the targets, consistent with our proposal that lexical information is encoded more robustly when the cost of normalization is smaller. Furthermore, Gilbert et al (2014) observed that overall intelligibility was not fully predictive of encoding strength (see also Mattys and Liss (2008)), consistent with our observation from Experiment 1 that processing dialect-specific information is costly even when word recognition is ultimately successful. Our results provide new evidence that the processing costs associated with normalization for dialect variation in noise play a critical role in lexical encoding strength: the presence of noise in Experiment 2 imposed a greater processing cost on the Northern forms, resulting in weaker encoding of the Northern forms in memory, relative to the Midland forms.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 83%

“…For example, Church and Schacter (1994) observed significant repetition benefits with low-pass filtered stimulus materials in their implicit recognition memory task, but no significant repetition benefits with stimulus materials presented in the quiet in their explicit recognition memory task, suggesting differential processing of talker-specific information as a function of noise and/or task demands. More recently, Gilbert, Chandrasekaran, and Smiljanic (2014) found stronger explicit recognition memory in noise when the speech to be remembered was hyperarticulated. They interpreted this finding as reflecting stronger linguistic encoding when less processing was required to accurately identify the targets, consistent with our proposal that lexical information is encoded more robustly when the cost of normalization is smaller.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Variation in the strength of lexical encoding across dialects

Clopper

Tamati

Pierrehumbert

2016

Journal of Phonetics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Lexical processing is slower and less accurate for unfamiliar dialects than familiar dialects. The goal of the current study was to test the hypothesis that dialect differences in lexical processing reflect differences in lexical encoding strength across dialects. Lexical encoding (i.e., updating the cognitive lexical representation to reflect the current token) was distinguished from lexical recognition (i.e., mapping the incoming acoustic signal to the target lexical category) in a series of lexical processing tasks with Midland and Northern American English. The experiments were conducted in the Midland region with Midland and Northern listeners. The results confirmed differential processing of the two dialects: the Midland dialect was processed more quickly than the Northern dialect. The results further revealed significantly larger repetition benefits (i.e., priming) and cross-dialect lexical interference effects for lexical forms in the Midland dialect than in the Northern dialect for both listener groups, particularly when the stimulus materials were presented in noise. These results suggest that lexical information is more strongly encoded for the contextually-local Midland dialect than for the non-local Northern dialect. We interpret these effects as reflecting cognitive processing costs associated with normalization for dialect variation, which lead to weaker lexical encoding under more difficult processing conditions.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 83%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Variation in the strength of lexical encoding across dialects

Clopper

Tamati

Pierrehumbert

2016

Journal of Phonetics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Nevertheless, delayed recognition memory tasks consistently demonstrate that encoding is poorer for speech listening task conditions that are more difficult (e.g., Wild et al, 2012; Zekveld et al, 2013; Gilbert et al, 2014; Van Engen and Peelle, 2014). The present study replicates these behavioral results: recognition memory was worse for words that had been presented in a lower compared to a higher SNR in Task 1.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cingulo-opercular activity affects incidental memory encoding for speech in noise

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Correctly understood speech in difficult listening conditions is often difficult to remember. A long-standing hypothesis for this observation is that the engagement of cognitive resources to aid speech understanding can limit resources available for memory encoding. This hypothesis is consistent with evidence that speech presented in difficult conditions typically elicits greater activity throughout cingulo-opercular regions of frontal cortex that are proposed to optimize task performance through adaptive control of behavior and tonic attention. However, successful memory encoding of items for delayed recognition memory tasks is consistently associated with increased cingulo-opercular activity when perceptual difficulty is minimized. The current study used a delayed recognition memory task to test competing predictions that memory encoding for words is enhanced or limited by the engagement of cingulo-opercular activity during challenging listening conditions. An fMRI experiment was conducted with twenty healthy adult participants who performed a word identification in noise task that was immediately followed by a delayed recognition memory task. Consistent with previous findings, word identification trials in the poorer signal-to-noise ratio condition were associated with increased cingulo-opercular activity and poorer recognition memory scores on average. However, cingulo-opercular activity decreased for correctly identified words in noise that were not recognized in the delayed memory test. These results suggest that memory encoding in difficult listening conditions is poorer when elevated cingulo-opercular activity is not sustained. Although increased attention to speech when presented in difficult conditions may detract from more active forms of memory maintenance (e.g., sub-vocal rehearsal), we conclude that task performance monitoring and/or elevated tonic attention supports incidental memory encoding in challenging listening conditions.

show abstract

“…Clear speech-a speaking style that is naturally and spontaneously adopted by speakers when they are aware their interlocutors are having difficulty understanding them-is more intelligible than conversational speech for a wide range of listeners in noisy conditions and, further, improves recognition memory for speech in quiet and in noise (Gilbert, Chandrasekaran, & Smiljanic, 2014;Van Engen, Chandrasekaran, & Smiljanic, 2012). Among those for whom intelligibility benefits have been documented are adults with normal and impaired hearing (Payton, Uchanski, & Braida, 1994;Picheny, Durlach, & Braida, 1985), older adults with hearing loss (Ferguson & Kewley-Port, 2002;Schum, 1996), nonnative speakers (Bradlow & Bent, 2002), and children with and without learning disabilities (Bradlow, Kraus, & Hayes, 2003).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%