Working Memory Capacity May Influence Perceived Effort during Aided Speech Recognition in Noise

Abstract

Subjective ratings of the effort involved in speech recognition in noise reflect SNRs, and individual cognitive capacity seems to influence relative rating of noise type.

Listening Effort Through Depth of Processing in School-Age Children

“…Despite increased research activities in this area, the wider academic community has yet to agree on the most optimal way(s) of measuring listening effort (McGarrigle et al 2014). A variety of techniques found in the literature can be broadly categorized into three groups: 1) subjective methods, such as the use of a standardized Speech, Spatial, and Qualities of Hearing Scale (Akeroyd et al 2014) or a Visual Analog Scale tailored for listening effort (e.g., Rudner et al 2012); 2) behavioural methods, such as repeating sentences while visually tracking a moving dot (Desjardins & Doherty 2014) or monitoring running speech for substituted words (MacPherson & Akeroyd 2013); 3) physiological methods, such as measuring skin conductance (Mackersie & Cones 2011) or the extent of pupil dilation (Zekveld et al 2010). Compared to interviews or questionnaires, behavioural paradigms aim to make listening effort measurable without evoking the subjects' own judgment, which is often affected by both intrinsic and extrinsic factors that are hard to control.…”

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).…”

“…One approach to measuring the ability to manipulate intelligible information assumes that cognitive resources are consumed in the very act of listening, which in turn leaves fewer resources to process the auditory information (Rudner et al, 2012;Rudner, Ng, et al, 2011). This assumption is supported by studies showing a decreased memory performance for sentences heard in noise compared to performance in quiet (Heinrich & Schneider, 2011;Pichora-Fuller et al, 1995;Sarampalis et al, 2009).…”

“…However, the benefit of hearing aids varies between individuals, which might partly be explained by individual differences in cognitive capacity . Also, speech reception in noise performance is related to cognitive abilities in individuals using hearing aids (Foo et al, 2007;Humes, 2007;Lunner, 2003;Rudner et al, 2009;Rudner et al, 2012).…”

“…When listening in adverse conditions, cognitive resources are consumed for listening which leaves fewer resources to remember and process the auditory information (Mishra, Rudner, Lunner, & Rönnberg, 2010). The residual cognitive capacity left after successful listening is called an individual's cognitive spare capacity Rudner, Lunner, Behrens, Thoren, & Rönnberg, 2012;Rudner, Ng, et al, 2011). If the individual's cognitive spare capacity could be measured, this would be an indication of how well hearing aids are fitted.…”