Individual differences in language and working memory affect children’s speech recognition in noise

Abstract

Objective: We examined how cognitive and linguistic skills affect speech recognition in noise for children with normal hearing. Children with better working memory and language abilities were expected to have better speech recognition in noise than peers with poorer skills in these domains. Design: As part of a prospective, cross-sectional study, children with normal hearing completed speech recognition in noise for three types of stimuli: (1) monosyllabic words, (2) syntactically correct but semantically anomalous sentences and (3) semantically and syntactically anomalous word sequences. Measures of vocabulary, syntax and working memory were used to predict individual differences in speech recognition in noise. Study sample: Ninety-six children with normal hearing, who were between 5 and 12 years of age. Results: Higher working memory was associated with better speech recognition in noise for all three stimulus types. Higher vocabulary abilities were associated with better recognition in noise for sentences and word sequences, but not for words. Conclusions: Working memory and language both influence children’s speech recognition in noise, but the relationships vary across types of stimuli. These findings suggest that clinical assessment of speech recognition is likely to reflect underlying cognitive and linguistic abilities, in addition to a child’s auditory skills, consistent with the Ease of Language Understanding model.

Key Words:

• Behavioural measures
• paediatric
• speech perception
• psychoacoustics/hearing science
• noise

Acknowledgements

Preliminary data for this manuscript were presented at the 2014 Annual Scientific and Technology Conference of the American Auditory Society. This work was supported by grants from NIH-NIDCD (R03 DC012635, R01 DC013591, P30 DC004662, T32 DC000013). The authors wish to thank Ellen Hatala and Kris Fernau for help with data collection and development of Figures.

Declaration of interest

The authors report no conflicts of interest. The authors alone are responsible for the content and writing of this article. This work was supported by grants from NIH-NIDCD (R03 DC012635, R01 DC013591, P30 DC004662, T32 DC000013).