The Contribution of Age, Working Memory Capacity, and Inhibitory Control on Speech Recognition in Noise in Young and Older Adult Listeners

Abstract

Purpose The study aimed to investigate the relationship between speech recognition in noise, age, hearing ability, self-rated listening effort, inhibitory control (measured with the Swedish Hayling task), and working memory capacity (WMC; measured with the Reading Span test). Two different speech materials were used: the Hagerman test with low semantic context and Hearing in Noise Test sentences with high semantic context, masked with either energetic or informational maskers. Method A mixed design was used. Twenty-four young normally hearing ( M age = 25.6 years) and 24 older, for their age, normally hearing individuals ( M age = 60.6 years) participated in the study. Speech recognition in noise in both speech materials and self-rated effort in all four background maskers were correlated with inhibitory control and WMC. A linear mixed-effects model was set up to assess differences between the two different speech materials, the four different maskers used in the study, and if age and hearing ability affected performance in the speech materials or the various background noises. Results Results showed that high WMC was related to lower scores of self-rated listening effort for informational maskers, as well as better performance in speech recognition in noise when informational maskers were used. The linear mixed-effects model revealed differences in performance between the low-context and the high-context speech materials, and the various maskers used. Lastly, inhibitory control had some impact on performance in the low-context speech material when masked with an informational masker. Conclusion Different background noises, especially informational maskers, affect speech recognition and self-rated listening effort differently depending on age, hearing ability, and individual variation in WMC and inhibitory control.

Speech Recognition and Listening Effort in Cochlear Implant Recipients and Normal-Hearing Listeners

“…For instance, Desjardins and Doherty (2013) showed that listening effort was significantly negatively correlated with working memory capacity (WMC) and processing speed. Similarly, Stenbäck et al (2021) found a negative relation between subjectively assessed listening effort and WMC, in line with the view that larger cognitive capacity is associated with less effort. However, it should be noted that such an association was not found in all studies (cf.…”

Is Having Hearing Loss Fundamentally Different? Multigroup Structural Equation Modeling of the Effect of Cognitive Functioning on Speech Identification

“…The main result of the current study supports the notion that cognitive functioning is important for listening in adverse conditions, regardless of hearing status. Importantly, we found that cognitive functioning is crucial at 50% word recognition, whereas a lot of research has shown effects at 80% word recognition, or higher, SRT (e.g., Larsby et al 2011; Stenbäck et al 2015, 2016). That cognitive processes are crucial for adverse listening conditions is further in line with the ELU model (e.g., Rönnberg et al 2013, 2019).…”

“…A majority of the research has examined the effects of cognition in groups of people with hearing loss (e.g., Arehart et al 2013;Foo et al 2007;Lunner 2003). This relationship has also been found in young normal-hearing persons in some studies (e.g., Michalek et al 2018;Stenbäck et al 2015Stenbäck et al , 2021 and older normal-hearing (Füllgrabe et al 2015). Here, we extend this research by using statistical techniques that enable us to model this and compare the effects between groups (i.e., normal-hearing and hearingimpaired older individuals).…”

The cognitive hearing science perspective on perceiving, understanding, and remembering language: The ELU model

“…In further support of the inhibition component, recent studies by Stenbäck et al (2015Stenbäck et al ( , 2021 verify that especially WMC (measured with the RST) but also the Swedish Hayling test (Stenbäck et al, 2015), which measures inhibition, were significant predictors of performance in speech-innoise (SPIN, Hällgren et al, 2006) and Hagerman matrix sentences (Hagerman, 1982). The Hayling test builds on the ability to inhibit sentence completion of the last semantically correct word instead of providing a semantically incorrect but grammatically correct word.…”