Seeing the talker’s face supports executive processing of speech in steady state noise

Abstract

Listening to speech in noise depletes cognitive resources, affecting speech processing. The present study investigated how remaining resources or cognitive spare capacity (CSC) can be deployed by young adults with normal hearing. We administered a test of CSC (CSCT; Mishra et al., 2013) along with a battery of established cognitive tests to 20 participants with normal hearing. In the CSCT, lists of two-digit numbers were presented with and without visual cues in quiet, as well as in steady-state and speech-like noise at a high intelligibility level. In low load conditions, two numbers were recalled according to instructions inducing executive processing (updating, inhibition) and in high load conditions the participants were additionally instructed to recall one extra number, which was the always the first item in the list. In line with previous findings, results showed that CSC was sensitive to memory load and executive function but generally not related to working memory capacity (WMC). Furthermore, CSCT scores in quiet were lowered by visual cues, probably due to distraction. In steady-state noise, the presence of visual cues improved CSCT scores, probably by enabling better encoding. Contrary to our expectation, CSCT performance was disrupted more in steady-state than speech-like noise, although only without visual cues, possibly because selective attention could be used to ignore the speech-like background and provide an enriched representation of target items in working memory similar to that obtained in quiet. This interpretation is supported by a consistent association between CSCT scores and updating skills.

Working memory for meaningless manual gestures.

“…Mishra et al, 2013) but mean performance on the semantic judgment part of the test was only 26.95 (SD=2.76) which is relatively low compared to previous studies which have found near ceiling performance for this component (e.g. Mishra et al, 2013). The relatively low score in the present study suggests that the participants were trading off cognitive resources across the two parts of the dual task.…”

“…Mean performance on the recall part was 27.10 (SD=5.50), which is in line with previous findings (e.g. Mishra et al, 2013) but mean performance on the semantic judgment part of the test was only 26.95 (SD=2.76) which is relatively low compared to previous studies which have found near ceiling performance for this component (e.g. Mishra et al, 2013).…”

“…Post cuing of items for recall is a common feature of recent versions of the reading span task (e.g. Mishra et al, 2013) which serves to combat selective encoding thus increasing working memory load. The dependent variable was the total number of words correctly recalled in any order.…”

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

“…This requires a higher degree of attentional investment at the perceptual level, and consequently more top-down processing to compensate for the poor bottom-up representation of the signal (Avivi-Reich et al, 2014). Therefore, more cognitive processes are occupied when listening in noise than in quiet (Akeroyd, 2008;Edwards, 2007;Larsby, Hällgren, Lyxell, & Arlinger, 2005;Mishra, Lunner, Stenfelt, Rönnberg, & Rudner, 2013a;Ng et al, 2013a;Pichora-Fuller & Singh, 2006;, and the use of these cognitive resources might be perceived as effortful (Picou, Ricketts, & Hornsby, 2011;Rabbit, 1968Rabbit, , 1991Rudner et al, 2012;. Thus, individuals experience listening in noise to be more effortful than listening in quiet (Pichora-Fuller et al, 1995).…”

“…It has been suggested that both working memory and updating processes are involved in disambiguating degraded speech and inferring absent information when listening in adverse conditions, and consequently compensating for speech understanding difficulties (Mishra et al, 2013a;. The cognitive processes store unidentified fragments of the speech signal in working memory until they can be disambiguated.…”