Effects of noise and working memory capacity on memory processing of speech for hearing-aid users

References

• Baddeley A.D., Logie R. & Nimmo-Smith I. 1985. Components of fluent reading. J Mem Lang, 24, 119–131.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boldt J.B., Kjems U., Pedersen M.S. et al. 2008. Estimation of the ideal binary mask using directional systems. Proceedings of the 11th International Workshop on Acoustic Echo and Noise Control.
   Google Scholar
• Brungart D.S., Chang P.S., Simpson B.D. et al. 2006. Isolating the energetic component of speech-on-speech masking with ideal time-frequency segregation. J Acoust Soc Am, 120, 4007–4018.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buus S. & Florentine M. 2001. Growth of loudness in listeners with cochlear hearing losses: Recruitment reconsidered. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol, 3, 120–139.
   Google Scholar
• Daneman M. & Carpenter P.A. 1980. Individual differences in working memory and reading. J Verb Learn Verb Behav, 19, 450–466.
   Google Scholar
• Duquesnoy A.J. 1983. Effect of a single interfering noise or speech source upon the binaural sentence intelligibility of aged persons. J Acoust Soc Am, 74, 739–743.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ephraim Y. & Malah D. 1985. Speech enhancement using a minimum mean-square error log-spectral amplitude estimator. IEEE Trans Acoust Speech Signal Processing, 33, 443–445.
   Google Scholar
• Festen J.M. & Plomp R. 1990. Effects of fluctuating noise and interfering speech on the speech-reception threshold for impaired and normal hearing. J Acoust Soc Am, 88, 1725–1736.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Foo C., Rudner M., Rönnberg J. et al. 2007. Recognition of speech in noise with new hearing instrument compression release settings requires explicit cognitive storage and processing capacity. J Am Acad Audiol, 18, 618–631.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gatehouse S., Naylor G. & Elberling C. 2003. Benefits from hearing aids in relation to the interaction between the user and the environment. Int J Audiol, 42, S77–85.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gellerstam M., Cederholm Y. & Rasmark T. 2000. The bank of Swedish. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, Greece, 329–333.
   Google Scholar
• Heinrich A. & Schneider B.A. 2011. Elucidating the effects of ageing on remembering perceptually distorted word pairs. Q J Exp Psychol, 64, 186–205.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hughes R.W. & Jones D.M. 2003. Indispensable benefits and unavoidable costs of unattended sound for cognitive functioning. Noise Health, 6, 63–76.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Humes L.E. 2007. The contributions of audibility and cognitive factors to the benefit provided by amplified speech to older adults. J Am Acad Audiol, 18, 590–603.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hällgren M., Larsby B. & Arlinger S. 2006. A Swedish version of the hearing in noise test (HINT) for measurement of speech Recognition. Int J Audiol, 45, 227–237.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jones D. & Morris M. 1992. Irrelevant speech and serial recall: Implications for theories of attention and working memory. Scand J Psychol, 33, 212–229.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Levitt H. 1971. Transformed up-down methods in psychoacoustics. J Acoust Soc Am, 49, 467–477.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li Y. & Wang D. 2009. On the optimality of ideal binary time-frequency masks. Speech Comm, 51, 230–239.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lunner T. 2003. Cognitive function in relation to hearing-aid use. Int J Audiol, 42(Suppl. 1), S49–S58.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lunner T., Rudner M. & Rönnberg J. 2009. Cognition and hearing aids. Scand J Psychol, 50, 395–403.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Macken W.J., Phelps F.G. & Jones D.M. 2009. What causes auditory distraction? Psychon Bul Rev, 16, 139–144.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Mattys S.L., Brooks J. & Cooke M. 2009. Recognizing speech under a processing load: Dissociating energetic from informational factors. Cognit Psychol, 59, 203–243.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCoy S.L., Tun P.A., Cox L.C. et al. 2005. Hearing loss and perceptual effort: Downstream effects on older adults' memory for speech. Q J Exp Psychol A, 58, 22–33.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moore B.C. 2008. The choice of compression speed in hearing aids: Theoretical and practical considerations and the role of individual differences. Trends Amplif, 12, 103–112.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Murdock B.B. 1974. Human Memory: Theory and Data. Potomac, USA: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Murphy D.R., Craik F.I., Li K.Z. et al. 2000. Comparing the effects of aging and background noise on short-term memory performance. Psychol Aging, 15, 323–334.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pichora-Fuller M.K., Schneider B.A. & Daneman M. 1995. How young and old adults listen to and remember speech in noise. J Acoust Soc Am, 97, 593–608.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rabbitt P. 1990. Mild hearing loss can cause apparent memory failures which increase with age and reduce with IQ. Acta Otolaryngol Suppl, 476, 167–175.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ricketts T.A. 2005. Directional hearing aids: Then and now. J Rehabil R D, 42(4, Suppl 2), 133–144.
   Google Scholar
• Rudner M., Rönnberg J. & Lunner T. 2011. Working memory supports listening in noise for persons with hearing impairment. J Am Acad Audiol, 22, 156–167.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rönnberg J. 1990. Cognitive and communicative function: The effects of chronological age and ”handicap age“. Eur J Cognit Psychol, 2, 253–274.
   Google Scholar
• Rönnberg J. 2003. Cognition in the hearing impaired and deaf as a bridge between signal and dialogue: A framework and a model. Int J Audiol, 42(Suppl. 1), S68–S76.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Rönnberg J., Arlinger S., Lyxell B. et al. 1989. Visual evoked potentials: Relation to adult speech-reading and cognitive function. J Speech Hear Res, 32, 725–735.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Rönnberg J., Rudner M., Foo C. et al. 2008. Cognition counts: A working memory system for ease of language understanding (ELU). Int J Audiol, 47(Suppl. 2), S99–S105.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Sarampalis A., Kalluri S., Edwards B. et al. 2009. Objective measures of listening effort: Effects of background noise and noise reduction. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 52, 1230–1240.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sörqvist P. & Rönnberg J. 2012. Episodic long-term memory of spoken discourse masked by speech: What role for working memory capacity? J Speech Lang Hear Res, 55, 210–218.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tun P.A., McCoy S. & Wingfield A. 2009. Aging, hearing acuity, and the attentional costs of effortful listening. Psychol Aging, 24, 761–766.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tun P.A., O'Kane G. & Wingfield A. 2002. Distraction by competing speech in young and older adult listeners. Psychol Aging, 17, 453–467.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang D. 2008. Time-frequency masking for speech separation and its potential for hearing-aid design. Trends Amplif, 12, 332–353.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wang D., Kjems U., Pedersen M.S. et al. 2009. Speech intelligibility in background noise with ideal binary time-frequency masking. J Acoust Soc Am, 125, 2336–2347.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wingfield A., Tun P.A. & McCoy S.L. 2005. Hearing loss in older adulthood: What it is and how it interacts with cognitive performance. Curr Dir Psychol Sci, 14, 144–148.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zekveld A.A., Rudner M., Johnsrude I.S. et al. 2012. Behavioral and fMRI evidence that cognitive ability modulates the effect of semantic context on speech intelligibility. Brain Lang, 122, 103–113.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar