Display options
Cite
Souza PE, Arehart KH, Shen J, et al. Working memory and intelligibility of hearing-aid processed speech. Front Psychol. 2015;6:526doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00526.
Souza, P. E., Arehart, K. H., Shen, J., Anderson, M., & Kates, J. M. (2015). Working memory and intelligibility of hearing-aid processed speech. Frontiers in psychology, 6526. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00526
Souza, Pamela E, et al. "Working memory and intelligibility of hearing-aid processed speech." Frontiers in psychology vol. 6 (2015): 526. doi: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00526
Souza PE, Arehart KH, Shen J, Anderson M, Kates JM. Working memory and intelligibility of hearing-aid processed speech. Front Psychol. 2015 May 07;6:526. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00526. eCollection 2015. PMID: 25999874; PMCID: PMC4423473.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Front Psychol. 2015 May 07;6:526. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00526. eCollection 2015.

Working memory and intelligibility of hearing-aid processed speech.

Frontiers in psychology

Pamela E Souza, Kathryn H Arehart, Jing Shen, Melinda Anderson, James M Kates

Affiliations

  1. Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, Northwestern University Evanston, IL, USA ; Knowles Hearing Center, Northwestern University Evanston, IL, USA.
  2. Department of Speech, Language and Hearing Sciences, University of Colorado at Boulder Boulder, CO, USA.
  3. Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, Northwestern University Evanston, IL, USA.

PMID: 25999874 PMCID: PMC4423473 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00526

Abstract

Previous work suggested that individuals with low working memory capacity may be at a disadvantage in adverse listening environments, including situations with background noise or substantial modification of the acoustic signal. This study explored the relationship between patient factors (including working memory capacity) and intelligibility and quality of modified speech for older individuals with sensorineural hearing loss. The modification was created using a combination of hearing aid processing [wide-dynamic range compression (WDRC) and frequency compression (FC)] applied to sentences in multitalker babble. The extent of signal modification was quantified via an envelope fidelity index. We also explored the contribution of components of working memory by including measures of processing speed and executive function. We hypothesized that listeners with low working memory capacity would perform more poorly than those with high working memory capacity across all situations, and would also be differentially affected by high amounts of signal modification. Results showed a significant effect of working memory capacity for speech intelligibility, and an interaction between working memory, amount of hearing loss and signal modification. Signal modification was the major predictor of quality ratings. These data add to the literature on hearing-aid processing and working memory by suggesting that the working memory-intelligibility effects may be related to aggregate signal fidelity, rather than to the specific signal manipulation. They also suggest that for individuals with low working memory capacity, sensorineural loss may be most appropriately addressed with WDRC and/or FC parameters that maintain the fidelity of the signal envelope.

Keywords: aging; cognition; compression; hearing aid; hearing loss; intelligibility; quality

References

  1. Int J Audiol. 2003 Jul;42 Suppl 2:2S11-6 - PubMed
  2. J Am Acad Audiol. 2015 Feb;26(2):183-96 - PubMed
  3. J Acoust Soc Am. 2007 Apr;121(4):2362-75 - PubMed
  4. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013 Mar 12;110(11):4357-62 - PubMed
  5. J Am Acad Audiol. 2014 Jun;25(6):592-604 - PubMed
  6. Ear Hear. 1987 Oct;8(5 Suppl):119S-126S - PubMed
  7. Ear Hear. 2014 Sep-Oct;35(5):e213-27 - PubMed
  8. Ear Hear. 2016 Mar-Apr;37(2):137-43 - PubMed
  9. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2005 Jun;48(3):651-67 - PubMed
  10. Am J Audiol. 2014 Dec;23 (4):394-401 - PubMed
  11. Ear Hear. 2004 Apr;25(2):98-116 - PubMed
  12. Semin Speech Lang. 2000;21(2):169-83 - PubMed
  13. Ear Hear. 2013 May-Jun;34(3):251-60 - PubMed
  14. Trends Cogn Sci. 2000 Nov 1;4(11):417-423 - PubMed
  15. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2005 Apr;53(4):695-9 - PubMed
  16. J Acoust Soc Am. 2007 Apr;121(4):2023-33 - PubMed
  17. J Acoust Soc Am. 1999 Sep;106(3 Pt 1):1452-64 - PubMed
  18. J Speech Hear Res. 1988 Jun;31(2):166-77 - PubMed
  19. J Neurosci. 2012 Oct 10;32(41):14156-64 - PubMed
  20. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2013 Oct;56(5):1349-63 - PubMed
  21. J Speech Hear Res. 1989 Dec;32(4):725-35 - PubMed
  22. J Am Acad Audiol. 2001 Jan;12(1):37-51 - PubMed
  23. Neurology. 2011 Sep 27;77(13):1272-5 - PubMed
  24. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2005 Feb;48(1):224-35 - PubMed
  25. Int J Audiol. 2015 Jan;54(1):37-47 - PubMed
  26. Ear Hear. 2010 Jun;31(3):420-36 - PubMed
  27. Biol Psychol. 2000 Oct;54(1-3):35-54 - PubMed
  28. Int J Audiol. 2008 Nov;47 Suppl 2:S72-82 - PubMed
  29. Front Syst Neurosci. 2013 Jul 13;7:31 - PubMed
  30. Int J Audiol. 2008 Nov;47 Suppl 2:S53-71 - PubMed
  31. Am J Audiol. 1998 Oct 1;7(2):21-25 - PubMed
  32. Ear Hear. 2014 Sep-Oct;35(5):519-32 - PubMed
  33. J Am Acad Audiol. 2007 Jul-Aug;18(7):604-17 - PubMed
  34. PLoS One. 2011;6(7):e22358 - PubMed
  35. Int J Audiol. 2006 Mar;45(3):153-71 - PubMed
  36. Science. 1992 Jan 31;255(5044):556-9 - PubMed
  37. Ear Hear. 2014 May-Jun;35(3):e52-62 - PubMed
  38. J Acoust Soc Am. 2007 Aug;122(2):1150-64 - PubMed
  39. J Acoust Soc Am. 2007 Feb;121(2):1090-101 - PubMed
  40. Trends Amplif. 2013 Jun;17(2):75-93 - PubMed
  41. J Am Acad Audiol. 2007 Jul-Aug;18(7):618-31 - PubMed
  42. J Acoust Soc Am. 2013 Dec;134(6):4458 - PubMed
  43. Front Neurosci. 2014 Dec 04;8:391 - PubMed

Publication Types

Grant support