![Sample our Health and Social Care journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5938/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Health-Social-Care.jpg"})
Abstract
This paper summarizes twenty studies, published since 1989, that have measured experimentally the relationship between speech recognition in noise and some aspect of cognition, using statistical techniques such as correlation or factor analysis. The results demonstrate that there is a link, but it is secondary to the predictive effects of hearing loss, and it is somewhat mixed across study. No one cognitive test always gave a significant result, but measures of working memory (especially reading span) were mostly effective, whereas measures of general ability, such as IQ, were mostly ineffective. Some of the studies included aided listening, and two reported the benefits from aided listening: again mixed results were found, and in some circumstances cognition was a useful predictor of hearing-aid benefit.
| Abbreviations | ||
| CID | = | Central institute for the deaf |
| CRM | = | Coordinate response measure |
| CST | = | Connected speech test |
| FAAF | = | Four alternative auditory feature |
| GIT | = | Groninger intelligentie test |
| GPA | = | Grade point average |
| HINT | = | Hearing in noise test |
| NU-6 | = | Northwestern University auditory test no. 6 |
| NST | = | Nonsense syllable test |
| PB | = | Phonetically balanced |
| SAT | = | Scholastic aptitude test |
| SPIN | = | Speech perception in noise |
| SRT | = | Speech reception threshold |
| SSI | = | Synthetic sentence identification |
| TBAC | = | Test of basic auditory capabilities |
| TRT | = | Test reception threshold |
| WAIS-R | = | Wechsler adult Intelligence Scale - Revised |
| WAIS-III | = | Wechsler adult intelligence scale - 3rd edition |
| WMS-R | = | Wechsler memory scale - revised |
| Abbreviations | ||
| CID | = | Central institute for the deaf |
| CRM | = | Coordinate response measure |
| CST | = | Connected speech test |
| FAAF | = | Four alternative auditory feature |
| GIT | = | Groninger intelligentie test |
| GPA | = | Grade point average |
| HINT | = | Hearing in noise test |
| NU-6 | = | Northwestern University auditory test no. 6 |
| NST | = | Nonsense syllable test |
| PB | = | Phonetically balanced |
| SAT | = | Scholastic aptitude test |
| SPIN | = | Speech perception in noise |
| SRT | = | Speech reception threshold |
| SSI | = | Synthetic sentence identification |
| TBAC | = | Test of basic auditory capabilities |
| TRT | = | Test reception threshold |
| WAIS-R | = | Wechsler adult Intelligence Scale - Revised |
| WAIS-III | = | Wechsler adult intelligence scale - 3rd edition |
| WMS-R | = | Wechsler memory scale - revised |
Sumario
Este trabajo resume veinte estudios publicados desde 1989, que han medido experimentalmente la relación entre el reconocimiento del lenguaje en ruido y algunos aspectos de la cognición, utilizando técnicas estadísticas tales como el análisis de factores o de correlación. Los resultados demuestran que existe un vínculo, pero es secundario a los efectos predictivos de la hipoacusia, y se encuentra algo de confusión entre los estudios. Ninguna prueba cognitiva brinda siempre resultados significativos, pero las mediciones de la memoria de trabajo (especialmente lectura retentiva) fueron bastante efectivas, mientras que las mediciones de capacidad general, tales como el IQ, fueron básicamente no efectivas. Algunos de los estudios incluyeron audición amplificada, y dos reportaron los beneficios de tal audición amplificada: de nuevo, se encontraron resultados confusos, y en algunas circunstancias, la cognición fue un elemento de predicción útil del beneficio de un auxiliar auditivo.
Notes
1. Factor analysis has been associated with auditory ability since its beginnings: the data used by Spearman in the first paper on factor analysis (Spearman, Citation1904; Cudeck & MacCallum, Citation2007) included the correlation between pitch discrimination and both general intelligence, ‘g’, and performance, by school exam, at Classics. The values were 0.94 and 0.67, respectively.
2. Gatehouse et al (2006) reported Pearson and Spearman correlations; the summary here uses the Pearson values.
3. The values of structure coefficients from Humes et al (Citation1994) are read from their Figure 6 to the nearest 5% rather than taken from a table or the text.
4. There are also the separate questions of how good the various cognitive tests are at measuring what they are argued to measure, and how many of the cognitive processes they actually depend on are used in speech perception.