The Swedish Hayling task, and its relation to working memory, verbal ability, and speech‐recognition‐in‐noise

Abstract

Cognitive functions and speech-recognition-in-noise were evaluated with a cognitive test battery, assessing response inhibition using the Hayling task, working memory capacity (WMC) and verbal information processing, and an auditory test of speech recognition. The cognitive tests were performed in silence whereas the speech recognition task was presented in noise. Thirty young normally-hearing individuals participated in the study. The aim of the study was to investigate one executive function, response inhibition, and whether it is related to individual working memory capacity (WMC), and how speech-recognition-in-noise relates to WMC and inhibitory control. The results showed a significant difference between initiation and response inhibition, suggesting that the Hayling task taps cognitive activity responsible for executive control. Our findings also suggest that high verbal ability was associated with better performance in the Hayling task. We also present findings suggesting that individuals who perform well on tasks involving response inhibition, and WMC, also perform well on a speech-in-noise task. Our findings indicate that capacity to resist semantic interference can be used to predict performance on speech-in-noise tasks.

Speech masking speech in everyday communication: The role of inhibitory control and working memory capacity

“…In study one, when assessing speech recognition in noise, using the Hagerman test, masked with a SSN, YNH with higher WMC and good inhibitory control performed better than their peers with lower WMC and worse inhibitory control (Stenbäck et al, 2015). However, in study two, the relation between WMC and speech recognition in noise in YNH was not significant (Stenbäck et al, 2016).…”

“…High verbal ability, and / or knowledge about the context of a conversation, has been suggested to be beneficial in tasks where resistance to semantic interference is of importance (Schneider et al, 2007;Stenbäck et al, 2015;Wotton et al, 2011). In study two, high verbal ability was beneficial for lexical decisionmaking in a speech -recognition -in -noise task, but only in the hearing -impaired individuals.…”

“…High WMC (Lunner, 2003) and resistance to PI (Ellis & Rönnberg, 2014;Stenbäck, Hällgren, Lyxell & Larsby, 2015) have been shown to be important predictors of speech recognition in noise and successful speech processing under adverse listening conditions. Among others, Larsby et al (2008Larsby et al ( , 2012 showed that successful speech recognition is largely dependent on the level of noise compared to the signal.…”

“…The possibility that individuals with higher WMC can deploy more resources in order to successfully resolve conflict arising between target speech and masker, might especially manifest at lower signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs), where listening conditions are unfavourable. Performance on a speech -in -noise task might be predicted by assessing WMC and inhibitory control (Ellis & Rönnberg, 2014;Stenbäck, Hällgren, Lyxell & Larsby, 2015, 2016.…”

“…In the Swedish version of the task (Stenbäck et al, 2015), the initiation condition is repeated with the same instructions as for the inhibition condition. Presenting the participants with the initiation condition, asking them to complete the sentences with a semantically non -related but grammatically correct word, ensures that the participants must engage in active suppression as the logical word has already been activated in the initiation condition (Borella, Ludwig, Fagot & De Ribaupierre, 2011;Stenbäck et al, 2015).…”