Are individual differences in speech reception related to individual differences in cognitive ability? A survey of twenty experimental studies with normal and hearing-impaired adults

References

• Baddeley A. Working Memory, Thought, and Action. Oxford University Press, Oxford 2007
   Google Scholar
• Bernstein L.E., Eberhardt S.P. Johns Hopkins Lipreading Corpus I-II: Disc 1. Johns Hopkins, Baltimore 1986a
   Google Scholar
• Bernstein L.E., Eberhardt S.P. Johns Hopkins Lipreading Corpus III-IV: Disc 2. Johns Hopkins, Baltimore 1986b
   Google Scholar
• Bilger R.C., Nuetzel J.M., Rabinowitz W.M., Rzeczkowski C. Standardization of a test of speech perception in noise. J Speech Hear Res 1984; 27: 32–48
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bolia R.S., Nelson W.T., Erickson M.A., Simpson B.D. A speech corpus for multitalker communications research. J Acoust Soc Am 2000; 107: 1065–1066
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boothroyd A., Nittrouer S. Mathematical treatment of context effects in phoneme and word recognition. J Acoust Soc Am 1988; 84: 101–114
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Broadbent D.E. Perception and Communication. Pergamon Press, London 1958
   Google Scholar
• Bronkhorst A.W., Brand T., Wagener K. Evaluation of context effects in sentence recognition. J Acoust Soc Am 2002; 111: 2874–2886
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carpenter P.A., Just M.A. Sentence comprehension: A psycholinguistic processing model of verification. Psych Rev 1975; 82: 45–73
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carroll J.B. Human Cognitive Abilities: A Survey of Factor-analytic Studies. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1993
   Google Scholar
• Clark L.E., Knowles J.B. Age differences in dichotic listening performance. J Gerontol 1973; 28: 173–178
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Committee for Hearing, Bioacoustics, & Biomechanics (CHABA). 1988. Speech understanding and aging. J Acoust Soc Am, 83, 859–895.
   Google Scholar
• Cox R.M., Alexander G.C., Gilmore C.G., Pusakulich K.M. Use of the connected speech test (CST) with hearing-impaired listeners. Ear Hear 1988; 9: 198–207
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• R. Cudeck & MacCullum, R.C. ( eds.) 2007. Factor Analysis at 100: Historical Developments and Future Directions. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Daneman M., Carpenter P.A. Individual differences in working memory and reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour 1980; 19: 450–466
   Google Scholar
• Daneman M., Merikel P.M. Working memory and language comprehension: A meta-analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 1996; 3: 422–433
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davis H., Silverman S.R. Hearing and Deafness. Hold, Rinehart, and Winston, New York 1970
   Google Scholar
• Diveny P.L., Haupt K.M. Audiological correlates of speech understanding deficits in elderly listeners with mild-to-moderate hearing loss. I. Age and lateral asymmetry effects. Ear Hear 1997a; 18: 42–61
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Diveny P.L., Haupt K.M. Audiological correlates of speech understanding deficits in elderly listeners with mild-to-moderate hearing loss. II. Correlation analysis. Ear Hear 1997b; 18: 100–113
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Diveny P.L., Haupt K.M. Audiological correlates of speech understanding deficits in elderly listeners with mild-to-moderate hearing loss. III. Factor representation effects. Ear Hear 1997c; 18: 189–201
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dreschler W.A., Verschuure H., Ludvigsen C., Westerman S. ICRA noises: Artificial noise signals with speech-like spectral and temporal properties for hearing-instrument assessment. Audiology 2001; 40: 148–157
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Dubno J.R., Ahlstrom J.B., Horwitz A.R. Use of context by young and aged adults with normal hearing. J Acoust Soc Am 2000; 107: 538–546
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Egan J.P. Articulation testing methods. Laryngoscope 1948; 58: 955–991
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fifer R., Jerger J., Berlin C., Tobey E., Campbell J. Development of a dichotic speech sentence identification test for hearing-impaired adults. Ear Hear 1984; 4: 300–305
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Foo C., Rudner M., Rönnberg J., Lunner T. Recognition of speech in noise with new hearing instrument compression release settings requires explicit cognitive storage and processing capacity. J Am Acad Audiol 2007; 18: 553–566
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Foster J.R., Haggard M.P. The four alternative auditory feature test (FAAF): Linguistic and psychometric properties of the material with normative data in noise. Br J Audiol 1987; 21: 165–174
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Frisina D.R., Frisina R.D. Speech recognition in noise and presbycusis: Relations to possible neural mechanisms. Hear Res 1997; 106: 95–104
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gantz B.J., Woodworth G.G., Abbas P.J., Knutson J.F., Tyler R.S. Multivariate predictors of audiological success with multichannel cochlear implants. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1993; 102: 90–916
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gatehouse S., Elberling C., Naylor G. Aspects of auditory ecology and psychoacoustic function as determinants of benefits from and candidature for nonlinear processing in hearing aids. Auditory Models and Nonlinear Hearing Instruments: 18th Danavox Symposium. 1999; 221–233
   Google Scholar
• Gatehouse S., Naylor G., Elberling C. Benefits from hearing aids in relation to the interaction between the user and the environment. Int J Audiol 2003; 42: S77–S85
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gatehouse S., Naylor G., Elberling C. Linear and nonlinear hearing aid fittings. 1. Patterns of benefit. Int J Audiol 2006a; 45: 130–152
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gatehouse S., Naylor G., Elberling C. Linear and nonlinear hearing aid fittings. 2. Patterns of candidature. Int J Audiol 2006b; 45: 153–171
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• George E.L.J., Zekveld A.A., Kramer S.E., Goverts S.T., Festen J.M., et al. Auditory and nonauditory factors affecting speech reception in noise by older listeners. J Acoust Soc Am 2007; 121: 2362–2375
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Givens G.D., Arnold R., Hume W.G. Auditory processing skills and hearing aid satisfaction in a sample of older adults. Percept Mot Skills 1998; 98: 795–801
   Google Scholar
• Gordon-Salant S., Fitzgibbons P.J. Selected cognitive factors and speech recognition performance among young and elderly listeners. J Speech Lang Hear Res 1997; 40: 423–431
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grant K.W., Seitz P.F. The recognition of isolated words and words in sentences: Individual variability in the use of sentence context. J Acoust Soc Am 2000; 107: 1000–1011
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hagerman B., Kinnefors C. Efficient adaptive methods for measurements of speech reception thresholds in quiet and noise. Scand Audiol 1995; 24: 71–77
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hällgren M., Larsby B., Arlinger S. A Swedish version of the hearing in noise test (HINT) for measurement of speech recognition. Int J Audiol 2006; 45: 227–237
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hällgren M., Larsby B., Lyxell B., Arlinger S. Cognitive effects in dichotic speech testing in elderly persons. Ear Hear 2001a; 22: 120–129
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hällgren M., Larsby B., Lyxell B., Arlinger S. Evaluation of a cognitive test battery in young and elderly normal-hearing and hearing-impaired persons. J Am Acad Audiol 2001b; 12: 357–370
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hällgren M., Larsby B., Lyxell B., Arlinger S. Speech understanding in quiet and noise, with and without hearing aids. Int J Audiol 2005; 44: 574–583
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hirsh I.J., Davis H., Silverman S.R., Reynolds E.G., Eldert E., et al. Development of materials for speech audiometry. J Sp Hear Dis 1952; 17: 321–337
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• House A.S., Williams C.E., Hecker M.H.L., Kryter K. Articulation-testing methods: Consonantal differentiation with a closed-response set. J Acoust Soc Am 1965; 37: 158–166
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Houtgast T., Kramer S.E. On the inclusion of cognitive aspects within the European project HearCom. J Am Acad Audiol 2007; 18: 632–633
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Humes L.E. Speech understanding in the elderly. J Am Acad Audiol 1996; 7: 161–167
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Humes L.E. Factors underlying the speech-recognition performance of elderly hearing-aid wearers. J Acoust Soc Am 2002; 112: 1112–1132
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Humes L.E. Do ‘auditory processing’ tests measure auditory processing in the elderly?. Ear Hear 2005; 26: 109–119
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Humes L.E. The contributions of audibility and cognitive factors to the benefit provided by amplified speech to older adults. J Am Acad Audiol 2007; 18: 590–603
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Humes L.E., Floyd S.S. Measures of working memory, sequence learning, and speech recognition in the elderly. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2005; 48: 224–235
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Humes L.E., Burk M.H., Coughlin M.P., Busey T.A., Strauser L.E. Auditory speech recognition and visual text recognition in younger and older adults: Similarities and differences between modalities and the effects of presentation rate. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2007; 50: 283–303
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Humes L.E., Lee J.H., Coughlin M.P. Auditory measures of selective and divided attention in young and older adults using single-talker competition. J Acoust Soc Am 2006; 120: 2926–2937
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Humes L.E., Watson B.U., Christensen L.A., Cokely C.G., Halling D.C., et al. Factors associated with individual differences in clinical measures of speech recognition among the elderly. J Speech Hear Res 1994; 37: 465–474
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Jerger J., Chmiel R. Factor analytic structure of auditory impairment in elderly persons. J Am Acad Audiol 1997; 7: 269–276
   Google Scholar
• Jerger J., Jerger S., Pirozzolo F. Correlational analysis of speech audiometric scores, hearing loss, age, and cognitive abilities in the elderly. Ear Hear 1991; 12: 103–109
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jerger J., Jerger S., Oliver T., Pirozzolo F. Speech understanding in the elderly. Ear Hear 1989a; 10: 79–89
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jerger J., Mahurin R., Pirozzolo F. The separability of central auditory and cognitive deficits: Implications for the elderly. J Am Acad Audiol 1990; 1: 116–199
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Jerger J., Stach B., Pruitt J., Harper R., Kirby H. Comments on ‘Speech understanding and aging’ [J Acoust Soc Am, 83, 859–895 (1988)]. J Acoust Soc Am 1989; 85: 1352–1354
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Johnson D.M., Watson C.S., Jensen J.K. Individual differences in auditory capabilities. I. J Acoust Soc Am 1987; 81: 427–438
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kalikow D., Stevens K., Elliot L. Development of a test of speech intelligibility in noise using sentence materials with controlled word predictability. J Acoust Soc Am 1977; 61: 1337–1351
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kidd G.R., Watson C.S., Gygi B. Individual differences in auditory abilities. J Acoust Soc Am 2007; 122: 418–435
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knutson J.F., Hinriches J.V., Tyler R.S., Gantz B.J., Schartz H.A., et al. Psychological predictors of audiological outcomes of multichannel cochlear implants: Preliminary findings. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1991; 100: 817–822
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knutson J.F., Schartz H.A., Gantz B.J., Tyler R.S., Hinriches J.V., et al. Psychological state following 18 months of cochlear implant use. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1991; 100: 877–882
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Larsby B., Hällgren M., Lyxell B., Arlinger S. Cognitive performance and perceived effort in speech processing tasks: Effects of different noise backgrounds in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired subjects. Int J Audiol 2005; 44: 131–143
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levitt H. & Resnick, S.B. 1978. Speech reception by the hearing impaired: Methods of testing and development of materials. Scand Audiol, suppl 6, 107–129.
   Google Scholar
• Lunner T. Cognitive function in relation to hearing aid use. Int J Audiol 2003; 42: S49–S58
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lunner T., Sundewall-Thorén E. Interactions between cognition, compression, and listening conditions: Effects on speech-in-noise performance in a two-channel hearing aid. J. Am Acad Audiol 2007; 18: 604–617
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luteijn F., van der Ploeg F.A.E. Handleiding Groninger Intelligentie Test. Swets and Zeitlinger B.V, Lissethe Netherlands 1983
   Google Scholar
• Lyxell B., Andersson U., Borg E., Ohlsson I.S. Working memory capacity and phonological processing in deafened adults and individuals with a severe hearing impairment. Int J Audiol 2003; 42: S86–S89
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moray N. Attention: Selective Processes in Vision and Hearing. Hutchison Educational, London 1969a
   Google Scholar
• Moray N. Listening and Attention. Penguin Books, HarmondsworthUK 1969b
   Google Scholar
• Murphy D.R., Daneman M., Schneider B.A. Why do older adults have difficulties following conversations?. Psychol Aging 2006; 21: 49–61
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pashler H.E. The Psychology of Attention. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts 1998
   Google Scholar
• Pichora-Fuller M.K. Cognitive aging and auditory information processing. Int J Audiol 2003; 42: 2S26–2S32
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pichora-Fuller M.K., Schneider B.A., Daneman M. How young and old adults listen to and remember speech in noise. J Acoust Soc Am 1995; 97: 593–608
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pisoni D.B., Cleary M. Learning, memory, and cognitive processes in deaf children following cochlear implantation. Springer Handbook of Auditory Research, Vol. 20. Cochlear Implants: Auditory Prostheses and Electric Hearing, F.G. Zeng, A.N. Popper, R.R. Fay. Springer-Verlag, New York 2004
   Google Scholar
• Plomp R., Mimpen A.M. Improving the reliability of testing the speech reception threshold for sentences. Audiology 1979; 18: 43–52
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Rakerd B., Seitz P.F., Whearty M. Assessing the cognitive demands of speech listening for people with hearing losses. Ear Hear 1996; 17: 97–106
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Resnick, S., Dubno, J.R., Hoffnung, S. & Levitt, H. 1975. Phoneme errors on a nonsense syllable test. J Acoust Soc Am, 58, suppl: 1–114.
   Google Scholar
• Rönnberg J. Cognitive and communicative function: The effects of chronological age and ‘handicap age’. Eur J Cog Psychol 1990; 2: 253–273
   Google Scholar
• Rönnberg J. Cognition in the hearing impaired and deaf as a bridge between signal and dialogue: A framework and model. Int J Audiol 2003; 42: S68–S76
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rönnberg J., Andersson J., Andersson U., Johansson K., Lyxell B., et al. Cognition as a bridge between signal and dialogue: Communication in the hearing impaired and deaf. Scand Audiol 1998; 27(suppl 49)101–108
   Google Scholar
• Rönnberg, J., Rudner, M., Foo, C. & Lunner, T. Cognition counts: A working memory system for ease of language understanding. Int J Audiol. this issue
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rudner M., Foo C., Rönnberg J., Lunner T. Phonological mismatch makes aided speech recognition in noise cognitively taxing. Ear Hear 2007; 28: 879–892
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rudner, M., Foo, C., Sundewall-Thorén, E., Lunner, T. & Rönnberg, J. Phonological mismatch and explicit cognitive processing in a sample of 102 hearing-aid users. Int J Audiol, this issue.
   Google Scholar
• Sommers M.S. Stimulus variability and spoken word recognition. II. The effects of age and hearing impairment. J Acoust Soc Am 1997; 101: 2278–2288
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spearman C. General intelligence objectively determined and measured. Am J Psychol 1904; 15: 201–293
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Strouse A.L., Hall J.W. Test-retest reliability of a dichotic digits test for assessing central auditory function in Alzheimer's disease. Audiology 1995; 34: 85–90
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Styles E.A. The Psychology of Attention. Psychology Press, HoveUK 1997
   Google Scholar
• Surprenant A.M., Watson C.S. Individual differences in the processing of speech and nonspeech sounds by normal-hearing listeners. J Acoust Soc Am 2001; 110: 2085–2095
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thompson B. Canonical Correlation Analysis. Sage Publications, London 1984
   Google Scholar
• van Rooij J.C.G.M., Plomp R., Orlebeke J.F. Auditive and cognitive factors in speech perception by elderly listeners. I. Development of test battery. J Acoust Soc Am 1989; 86: 1294z–1309
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Rooij J.C.G.M., Plomp R. Auditive and cognitive factors in speech perception by elderly listeners. II. Multivariate analyses. J Acoust Soc Am 1990; 88: 2611–2624
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Rooij J.C.G.M., Plomp R. Auditive and cognitive factors in speech perception by elderly listeners. III. Additional data and final discussion. J Acoust Soc Am 1992; 91: 1028–1033
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vaughan N.E., Letowski T. Effects of age, speech rate, and type of test on temporal auditory processing. J Speech Lang Hear Res 1997; 40: 1192–1200
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wagener K.C., Josvassen J.L., Ardenkjaer R. Design, optimization, and evaluation of a Danish sentence test in noise. Int J Audiol 2003; 42: 10–17
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Watson B.U. Some relationships between intelligence and auditory discrimination. J Speech Hear Res 1991; 34: 621–627
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Watson C.S. Uncertainty, informational masking, and the capacity of immediate auditory memory. Auditory Processing of Complex Sounds, W.A. Yost, C.S. Watson. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, New Jersey 1987
   Google Scholar
• Watson C.S., Qiu W.W., Chamberlain M.M., Li X. Auditory and visual speech perception: Confirmation of a modality-independent source of individual differences in speech recognition. J Acoust Soc Am 1996; 100: 1153–1162
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weschler D. The Weschler Adult Intelligence Scale-Revised. The Psychological Corporation, New York 1981
   Google Scholar
• Weschler D. The Weschler Memory Scale-Revised. The Psychological Corporation, New York 1987
   Google Scholar
• Weschler D. The Weschler Adult Intelligence Scale-third edition. The Psychological Corporation, San Antonio, Texas 1997
   Google Scholar
• Wingfield A. Cognitive factors in auditory performance: Context, speed of processing, and constraints of memory. J Am Acad Audiol 1996; 7: 175–182
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Zekveld A.A., Deijen J.B., Goverts S.T., Kramer S.E. The relationship between nonverbal cognitive functions and hearing loss J Speech Lang Hear Res 2007a; 50: 74–82
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zekveld A.A., George E.L.J., Kramer S.E., Goverts S.T., Houtgast T. The development of the text reception threshold test: A visual analogue of the speech reception threshold test. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2007b; 50: 576–584
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zekveld A.A., Kramer S.E., Vlaming M.S.M.G., Houtgast T. Audiovisual perception of speech in noise and masked written text. Ear Hear 2008; 29: 99–111
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar