Cognitive performance and perceived effort in speech processing tasks: effects of different noise backgrounds in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired subjects Desempeño cognitivo y percepción del esfuerzo en tareas de procesamiento del lenguaje: Efectos de las diferentes condiciones de fondo en sujetos normales e hipoacúsicos

References

• Allen, S. 1970. Frequency dictionary of present-day Swedish (in Swedish: Nusvensk frekvensbok). Stockholm: Almquist & Wiksell.
   Google Scholar
• Ausmeel, H. 1988. TIPS (Text–Information–Processing–System): A user’s guide. Manuscript. Department of Education and Psychology, Linkoping University, Sweden.
   Google Scholar
• Bacon, S.P, Opie, J.M. & Montoya, D.Y 1998. The effects of hearing loss and noise masking on the masking release for speech in temporally complex backgrounds. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 41, 549–563.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Borg, G. 1990. Psychophysical scaling with applications in physical work and the perception of excertion. Scand J Work Environ Health, 16, 55–58.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bronkhorst, A.W & Plomp, R. 1992. Effect of multiple speech-like maskers on binaural speech recognition in normal and impaired hearing. J Acoust Soc Am, 92, 3132–3139.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• CHABA (Committee on Hearing Bioacoustics and Biomechanics) 1988. Speech understanding and aging. J Acoust Soc Am, 83, 859–895.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dreschler, WA., Verschuure, H., Ludvigsen, C. & Westermann, S. 2001.
   Google Scholar
• ICRA Noises: Artificial noise signals with speech-like spectral and temporal properties for hearing instrument assessment. Audiology, 40, 148–157.
   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
• Evans, G.W & Bullinger, M. 1998. Chronic noise exposure and physiological response: A prospective study of children living under environmental stress. Psychol Aging, 9, 75–77.
   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
• Fodor, J. 1983. The modularity of mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   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 JAudiol, 42(suppl 1), S77–S85.
   Google Scholar
• Girin, L., Schwartz, J.L. & Feng, G. 2001. Audio-visual enhancement of speech in noise. J Acoust Soc Am, 109, 3007–3020.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gustafsson, H.A. & Arlinger, S.D. 1994. Masking of speech by amplitude-modulated noise. J Acoust Soc Am, 95, 518–529.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hagerman, B. 1982. Sentences for testing speech intelligibility in noise. Scand Audiol, 11, 79–87.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hagerman, B. 2002. Speech recognition threshold in slightly and fully modulated noise for hearing-impaired subjects. Int J of Audiol, 41, 321–329.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hallgren, M., Larsby, B., Lyxell, B. & Arlinger, S. 2001a. Cognitive effects in dichotic speech testing in elderly persons. Ear & Hearing, 22, 120–129.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hallgren, M., Larsby, B., Lyxell, B. & Arlinger, S. 2001b. Evaluation of a cognitive test battery in young and elderly normal-hearing and hearing-impaired subjects. J Am Acad Audiol, 12, 357–370.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Humes, L.E. 1999. Dimensions of hearing aid outcome. J Am Acad Audiol, 10, 26–39.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hygge, S., Ronnberg, J, Larsby, B. & Arlinger, S. 1992. Normal-hearing and hearing-impaired subjects’ ability to just follow conversation in competing speech, reversed speech, and noise backgrounds. J Speech Hear Res, 35, 208–215.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• International Organization for Standardization. 2000. Statistical distribution of hearing thresholds as a function of age. ISO 7029. Geneva: ISO. Jones, D. 1999. The cognitive psychology of auditory distraction: The 1997 BPS Broadbent lecture. Br J Psychol, 90, 167–187.
   Google Scholar
• Kahari, K.R. 2002. The influence of music on hearing. A study in classical and rock/jazz musicians. Dissertation. Goteborg University, Sweden. Faculty of Medicine. Liberman, A.M. & Mattingly, I.G 1985. The motor theory of speech perception revised. Cognition, 21, 1–36.
   Google Scholar
• Lindenberger, U 2001. Lifespan theories of cognitive development. In: N.J. Smelser & PB. Baltes (eds.), International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Oxford, UK: Elsevier, (pp. 8848- 8854). Lunner, T. 2003. Cognitive function in relation to hearing aid use. Int J Audiol, 42(suppl 1), S49–58.
   Google Scholar
• Lyxell, B., Andersson, U, Borg, E. & Ohlsson, I-S. 2003. Working-memory capacity and phonological processing in deafened adults and individuals with a severe hearing impairment. Int J Audiol, 42(suppl 1), S86–89.
   Google Scholar
• Macken, W., Tremblay, S., Alford, D. & Jones, D. 1999. Attentional selectivity in short-term memory: Similarity of process, not similarity of content, determines disruption. Int J Psychol, 34, 322–327.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moore, B.C.J. 1985. Frequency selectivity and temporal resolution in normal and hearing-impaired listeners. Br J Audiol, 19, 189–201.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Murphy, D.R., Craik, F, Li, K. & Schneider, B.A. 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
• Oxenham, A.J. & Bacon, S.P. 2003. Cochlear compression: perceptual measures and implications for normal and impaired hearing. Ear & Hearing, 24, 352–366.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Passchier-Vermeer, W. & Passchier, W.F. 2000. Noise exposure and public health. Environ Health Perspect, 108, 123–131.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pichora-Fuller, M.K. 2003. Processing speed and timing in aging adults: psychoacoustics, speech perception, and comprehension. Int J Audiol, 42(suppl 1), S59–67.
   PubMedGoogle 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
• Ronnberg, J. 1990. Cognitive and communicative function: The effect of chronological age and ‘‘handicap age’’. Europ J Cogn Psychol, 2, 253–275.
   Google Scholar
• Schneider, B.A., Daneman, M. & Pichora-Fuller, M.K. 2002. Listening in aging adults: from discourse comprehension to psychoacoustics. Can J Exp Psychol, 56, 139–152.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shoben, E. 1982. Semantic and lexical decisions. In C.R. Puff (ed.), Handbook of research methods in human memory and cognition. New York: Academic Press. Snell, K.B., Mapes, F.M., Hickman, E.D. & Frisina, D.R. 2002. Word recognition in competing babble and the effects of age, temporal processing, and absolute sensitivity. JAcoust Soc Am, 112, 720–727.
   Google Scholar
• Sommers, M.S. 1997. Speech perception in older adults: The importance of speech-specific cognitive abilities. J Am Geriatr Soc, 45, 633–637.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Surprenant, A.M. 1999. The effect of noise on memory for spoken syllables. Int J Psychol, 34, 328–333.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tremblay, S., Nicholls, A.P., Alford, D. & Jones, D. 2000. The irrelevant sound effect: Does speech play a special role? J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn, 26, 1750–1754.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tun, PA., O’Kane, G. & Wingfield, A. 2002. Distraction by competing speech in young and older adult listeners. Psychol Aging, 17, 453–467. Tun, PA. & Wingfield, A. 1999. One voice too many: Adult age differences in language processing with different types of distracting sounds. J Gerontol, 54B, 317–327.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wingfield, A. 1996. Cognitive factors in auditory performance: context, speed of processing, and constraints of memory. JAcoust Soc Am, 7, 175–182.
   Google Scholar