Speech-in-speech perception and executive function involvement

Abstract

This present study investigated the link between speech-in-speech perception capacities and four executive function components: response suppression, inhibitory control, switching and working memory. We constructed a cross-modal semantic priming paradigm using a written target word and a spoken prime word, implemented in one of two concurrent auditory sentences (cocktail party situation). The prime and target were semantically related or unrelated. Participants had to perform a lexical decision task on visual target words and simultaneously listen to only one of two pronounced sentences. The attention of the participant was manipulated: The prime was in the pronounced sentence listened to by the participant or in the ignored one. In addition, we evaluate the executive function abilities of participants (switching cost, inhibitory-control cost and response-suppression cost) and their working memory span. Correlation analyses were performed between the executive and priming measurements. Our results showed a significant interaction effect between attention and semantic priming. We observed a significant priming effect in the attended but not in the ignored condition. Only priming effects obtained in the ignored condition were significantly correlated with some of the executive measurements. However, no correlation between priming effects and working memory capacity was found. Overall, these results confirm, first, the role of attention for semantic priming effect and, second, the implication of executive functions in speech-in-noise understanding capacities.

Bilinguals’ speech perception in noise: Perceptual and neural associations

“…Consequently, associations between perceptual performance and subcortical neural responses can also indirectly reflect the effect of the auditory cortex. In this regard, previous studies have shown that bilingual experience increases grey matter density in various cortex regions, including executive control regions [ 146 – 149 ], which are essential in challenging listening conditions [ 150 , 151 ]. Thus, it can be argued that bilinguals who tend to use more cortical resources in background noise may have more efficient backward processes, and consequently, their brainstem responses were found to be less susceptible to the effect of noise.…”

Listening effort: Are we measuring cognition or affect, or both?

“…With respect to identifying which cognitive resources are allocated during tasks that incur listening effort, there is a relatively broad consensus that the primary cognitive resource in question tends to be working memory capacity and/or the allocation and use of attention (Heald & Nusbaum, ; Pichora‐Fuller et al, ; Wingfield, ). Following the discussion of Strauss and Francis (), attention may be the resource most directly applicable to respond to the demands of listening (Chun, Golomb, & Turk‐Browne, ; Song & Iverson, ; Strauss et al, ; Wild et al, ), though other related resources including working memory (Rudner et al, ; Wingfield, ) and executive function (Brännström, Karlsson, Waechter, & Kastberg, ; Perrone‐Bertolotti, Tassin, & Meunier, ; Ward et al, ) surely play a role. These theoretical constructs are closely related, and the precise nature of their relationship is the subject of a huge scientific literature (Awh, Vogel, & Oh, ; Cowan, ; Engle, ; Fougnie, ; McCabe, Roediger, McDaniel, Balota, & Hambrick, ), rendering it beyond the scope of this article to address in detail.…”

Listener characteristics differentially affect self-reported and physiological measures of effort associated with two challenging listening conditions

“…There is a broad consensus that listeners faced with noise-related or speech-related listening challenges must allocate cognitive resources to overcome them (Pichora-Fuller et al, 2016 ; Shinn-Cunningham & Best, 2008 ; Van Engen & Peelle, 2014 ; Zekveld, Kramer, & Festen, 2011 ). Likely resources (broadly defined) include working memory capacity (Brännström, Karlsson, Waechter, & Kastberg, 2018 ; Ingvalson, Lansford, Fedorova, & Fernandez, 2017a , 2017b ; Pichora-Fuller et al, 2016 ; Rudner, Lunner, Behrens, Thorén, & Rönnberg, 2012 ; Wingfield, 2016 ), selective attention/executive control (Heald & Nusbaum, 2014 ; Song & Iverson, 2018 ; Strauss & Francis, 2017 ; Ward, Shen, Souza, & Grieco-Calub, 2017 ; Wild et al, 2012 ), processing speed (Ingvalson et al, 2017a ), and/or other executive functions such as inhibitory control and switching cost (Brännström et al, 2018 ; Ingvalson et al, 2017a , 2017b ; Perrone-Bertolotti et al, 2017 ). Thus, individual differences in cognitive capacity, perhaps especially selective attention and working memory, may underlie differences in listening performance both within and across contexts.…”