Some Factors Underlying Individual Differences in Speech Recognition on PRESTO: A First Report

Abstract

Background Previous studies investigating speech recognition in adverse listening conditions have found extensive variability among individual listeners. However, little is currently known about the core, underlying factors that influence speech recognition abilities. Purpose To investigate sensory, perceptual, and neurocognitive differences between good and poor listeners on PRESTO, a new high-variability sentence recognition test under adverse listening conditions. Research Design Participants who fell in the upper quartile (HiPRESTO listeners) or lower quartile (LoPRESTO listeners) on key word recognition on sentences from PRESTO in multitalker babble completed a battery of behavioral tasks and self-report questionnaires designed to investigate real-world hearing difficulties, indexical processing skills, and neurocognitive abilities. Study Sample Young, normal-hearing adults (N = 40) from the Indiana University community participated in the current study. Data Collection and Analysis Participants’ assessment of their own real-world hearing difficulties was measured with a self-report questionnaire on situational hearing and hearing health history. Indexical processing skills were assessed using a talker discrimination task, a gender discrimination task, and a forced-choice regional dialect categorization task. Neurocognitive abilities were measured with the Auditory Digit Span Forward (verbal short-term memory) and Digit Span Backward (verbal working memory) tests, the Stroop Color and Word Test (attention/inhibition), the WordFam word familiarity test (vocabulary size), the BRIEF-A self-report questionnaire on executive function, and two performance subtests of the WASI Performance IQ (non-verbal intelligence). Scores on self-report questionnaires and behavioral tasks were tallied and analyzed by listener group (HiPRESTO and LoPRESTO). Results The extreme groups did not differ overall on self-reported hearing difficulties in real-world listening environments. However, an item-by-item analysis of questions revealed that LoPRESTO listeners reported significantly greater difficulty understanding speakers in a public place. HiPRESTO listeners were significantly more accurate than LoPRESTO listeners at gender discrimination and regional dialect categorization, but they did not differ on talker discrimination accuracy or response time, or gender discrimination response time. HiPRESTO listeners also had longer forward and backward digit spans, higher word familiarity ratings on the WordFam test, and lower (better) scores for three individual items on the BRIEF-A questionnaire related to cognitive load. The two groups did not differ on the Stroop Color and Word Test or either of the WASI performance IQ subtests. Conclusions HiPRESTO listeners and LoPRESTO listeners differed in indexical processing abilities, short-term and working memory capacity, vocabulary size, and some domains of executive functioning. These findings suggest that individual differences in the ability to encode and maintain highly d...

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

“…With regard to inhibitory control, prior research did not find significant correlation between Stroop test and recognition performance in masking conditions ranging from primarily IM to primarily EM, including 2-talker babble (Desjardins & Doherty, 2013), 6-talker babble (Desjardins & Doherty, 2013; Tamati, et al, 2013), and SSN (Desjardins & Doherty, 2013). The current study replicated these findings.…”

“…Most existing studies using digit span task only investigated noise situations that primarily involved EM, such as 6-talker babble (Gordon-Salant, Yeni-Komshian, Fitzgibbons, Cohen, & Waldroup, 2013; Tamati, Gilbert, & Pisoni, 2013) and SSN (Gordon-Salant, et al, 2013; Humes et al, 1994; Kronenberger et al, 2013). Most of these studies did not find a link between digit span task (including backward and forward) and recognition performance, although one recent study from Tamati et al (2013) showed that these two span tasks were associated with recognition performance in 6-talker babble conditions when using a high-variability sentence recognition test (Gilbert, et al, 2013). …”

Prior listening exposure to a reverberant room improves open-set intelligibility of high-variability sentences

“…Speech stimuli from the Perceptually Robust English Sentence Test Open-set (PRESTO) speech corpus Tamati et al, 2013) were used. This corpus contains sentences sampled from the TIMIT database (Garofolo et al, 1993), specifically selected to create lists of sentences that are highly variable in terms of linguistic and indexical properties of the speech, but balanced for keyword frequency and familiarity.…”

Auditory Learning Using a Portable Real-Time Vocoder: Preliminary Findings

“…The first was a high-variability sentence recognition task (Task 3), where every sentence was produced by a different talker. Success at such a task requires more robust perceptual representations and adaptive recognition skills than at a single-talker task (Gilbert, Tamati, & Pisoni, 2013; Tamati, Gilbert, & Pisoni, 2013). If the challenges of interactive training resulted in improvements to indexical perception, therefore, subjects in the Interactive group would do better on this high-variability task than their Lab or Control counterparts.…”