Effect of informational masking on auditory working memory: role of linguistic information in the maskers

References

• Mattys SL, Davis MH, Bradlow AR, et al. Speech recognition in adverse conditions: a review. Lang Cogn Process. 2012;27:953–978.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brungart DS, Simpson BD, Ericson MA, et al. Informational and energetic masking effects in the perception of multiple simultaneous talkers. J Acoust Soc Am. 2001;110:2527–2538.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brungart DS, Simpson BD. The effects of spatial separation in distance on the informational and energetic masking of a nearby speech signal. J Acoust Soc Am. 2002;112:664–676.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bronkhorst AW. The cocktail party phenomenon: a review of research on speech intelligibility in multiple-talker conditions. Acta Acust United Acust. 2000;86:117–128.
   Google Scholar
• Miller RE, Gibbs BE, Fogerty D. Glimpsing speech interrupted by speech-modulated noise. J Acoust Soc Am. 2018;143:3058–3067.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Freyman RL, Balakrishnan U, Helfer KS. Effect of number of masking talkers and auditory priming on informational masking in speech recognition. J Acoust Soc Am. 2004;115:2246–2256.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Iyer N, Brungart DS, Simpson BD. Effects of target-masker contextual similarity on the multimasker penalty in a three-talker diotic listening task. J Acoust Soc Am. 2010;128:2998–3010.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Engen KJ, Bradlow AR. Sentence recognition in native- and foreign-language multi-talker background noise. J Acoust Soc Am. 2007;121:519–526.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoen M, Meunier F, Grataloup CL, et al. Phonetic and lexical interferences in informational masking during speech-in-speech comprehension. Speech Commun. 2007;49:905–916.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boulenger V, Hoen M, Ferragne E, et al. Real-time lexical competitions during speech-in-speech comprehension. Speech Commun. 2010;52:246–253.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Balakrishnan U, Freyman RL. Speech detection in spatial and nonspatial speech maskers. J Acoust Soc Am. 2008;123:2680–2691.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Freyman RL, Helfer KS, Balakrishnan U. Spatial release from informational masking in speech recognition. J Acoust Soc Am. 2001;109:2112–2122.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holmes E, Kitterick PT, Summerfield AQ. Peripheral hearing loss reduces the ability of children to direct selective attention during multi-talker listening. Hear Res. 2017;350:160–172.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Darwin CJ, Brungart DS, Simpson BD. Effects of fundamental frequency and vocal-tract length changes on attention to one of two simultaneous talkers. J Acoust Soc Am. 2003;114:2913–2922.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Füllgrabe C, Rosen S. On the (un)importance of working memory in speech-in-noise processing for listeners with normal hearing thresholds. Front Psychol. 2016;7:1–8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nagaraj NK. Working memory and speech comprehension in older adults with hearing impairment. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2017;60:2949. Internet]. Available from: http://jslhr.pubs.asha.org/article.aspx?doi=10.1044/2017_JSLHR-H-17-0022.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ng EHN, Rudner M, Lunner T, et al. Effects of noise and working memory capacity on memory processing of speech for hearing-aid users. Int J Audiol. 2013;52:433–441.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baddeley A. Working memory: the interface between memory and cognition. J Cogn Neurosci. 1992;4:281–288.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baddeley AD. Working memory. Science. 1992;255:556–559.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baddeley AD, Della Sala S. Working memory and executive control. Philos Trans R Soc Lond, B, Biol Sci. 1996;351:1397–1404.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rönnberg J, Lunner T, Zekveld A. The Ease of Language Understanding (ELU) model: theoretical, empirical, and clinical advances. Front. Syst. Neurosci. 2013;7:31.
   Google Scholar
• Baddeley AD, Hitch G. Working memory. Psychol Learn Motiv. 1974;8:47–89.
   Google Scholar
• Baddeley AD. Working memory and language: an overview. J Commun Disord. 2003;36:189–208.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Atkinson RC, Shiffrin RM. Human memory: a proposed system and its control processes. Psychol Learn Motiv. 1968;2:89–195.
   Google Scholar
• Nishiyama R, Ukita J. Articulatory rehearsal is more than refreshing memory traces. Exp Psychol. 2013;60:131–139.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baddeley AD. The episodic buffer: a new component of working memory? Trends Cogn Sci. 2000;4:417–423.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rönnberg J, Rudner M, Foo C, et al. Cognition counts: a working memory system for ease of language understanding (ELU). Int J Audiol. 2008;47:S99–S105.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Howard CS, Munro KJ, Plack CJ. Listening effort at signal-to-noise ratios that are typical of the school classroom. Int J Audiol. 2010;49:928–932.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Campbell T, Beaman CP, Berry DC. Auditory memory and the irrelevant sound effect: further evidence for changing-state disruption. Memory. 2002;10:199–214.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ahveninen J, Seidman LJ, Chang WT, et al. Suppression of irrelevant sounds during auditory working memory. Neuroimage. 2017;161. DOI:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.08.040
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salamé P, Baddeley AD. Disruption of short-term memory by unattended speech: implications for the structure of working memory. J Verbal Learn Verbal Behav. 1982;21:150–164.
   Google Scholar
• Beaman CP, Jones DM. Role of serial order in the irrelevant speech effect: tests of the changing-state hypothesis. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1997;23:459–471.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gisselgård J, Petersson KM, Ingvar M. The irrelevant speech effect and working memory load. Neuroimage. 2004;22:1107–1116.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rabbitt P. Channel-capacity, intelligibility and immediate memory. Q J Exp Psychol. 1968;20:241–248.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pichora‐Fuller MK, Schneider BA, 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
• Heinrich A, Schneider BA, Craik F. Investigating the influence of continuous babble on auditory short-term memory performance. Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2008;61:735–751.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Murphy DR, Craik FIM, Li KZH, et al. Comparing the effects of aging and background noise of short-term memory performance. Psychol Aging. 2000;15:323–334.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosen S, Souza P, Ekelund C, et al. Listening to speech in a background of other talkers: effects of talker number and noise vocoding. J Acoust Soc Am. 2013;133:2431–2443.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simpson SA, Cooke M. Consonant identification in N-talker babble is a nonmonotonic function of N. J Acoust Soc Am. 2005;118:2775–2778.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Millman RE, Mattys SL. Auditory verbal working memory as a predictor of speech perception in modulated maskers in listeners with normal hearing. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2017;60:1236–1245.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brungart DS. Informational and energetic masking effects in multitalker speech perception. Speech Sep Hum Mach. 2005;1101:261–267.
   Google Scholar
• Gnanateja GN. Speech Spectrum Shaped Noise [Internet]. Matlab Central File Exchange. 2016 [cited 2018 Jan 3]. Available from: https://www.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/fileexchange/55701-speech-spectrum-shaped-noise
   Google Scholar
• Institute ANS. Maximum permissible ambient noise levels for audiometric test rooms. ANSI S3. New York: American National Standards Institute; 2008. p. 1–1991.
   Google Scholar
• Gordon-Salant S, Cole SS. Effects of age and working memory capacity on speech recognition performance in noise among listeners with normal hearing. Ear Hear. 2016;37:593–602.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vachon F, Labonté K, Marsh JE. Attentional capture by deviant sounds: a noncontingent form of auditory distraction? J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2017;43:622–634.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wetherill GB, Levitt H. Sequential estimation of points of a psychometric function. Br J Math Stat Psychol. 1965;18:1.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• The JASP Team. JASP (Version 0.8.5.1). [Computer software]. 2017.
   Google Scholar
• Neidleman MT, Wambacq I, Besing J, et al. The effect of background babble on working memory in young and middle-aged adults. J Am Acad Audiol. 2015;26:220–228.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Osman H, Sullivan JR. Children’s auditory working memory performance in degraded listening conditions. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2014;57:1503–1511.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Engen KJ, Phelps JEB, Smiljanic R, et al. Enhancing speech intelligibility: interactions among context, modality, speech style, and masker. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2014;57:1908. Available from: http://jslhr.pubs.asha.org/article.aspx?doi=10.1044/JSLHR-H-13-0076
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marrone N, Alt M, DeDe G, et al. Effects of steady-state noise on verbal working memory in young adults. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2015;58:1793–1804.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zekveld AA, Kramer SE, Festen JM. Cognitive load during speech perception in noise: the influence of age, hearing loss, and cognition on the pupil response. Ear Hear. 2011;32:498–510.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stiles DJ, McGregor KK, Bentler RA. Vocabulary and working memory in children fit with hearing aids. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2012;55:154. Available from: http://jslhr.pubs.asha.org/article.aspx?doi=10.1044/1092-4388(2011/11-0021)
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salamé P, Baddeley A. Noise, unattended speech and short-term memory. Ergonomics. 1987;30:1185–1194.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tremblay S, Nicholls AP, Alford D, et al. The irrelevant sound effect: does speech play a special role? J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2000;26:1750–1754.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jones DM, Miles C, Page J. Disruption of proofreading by irrelevant speech: effects of attention, arousal or memory? Appl Cognit Psychol. 1990;4:89–108.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rhebergen KS, Versfeld NJ, Dreschler WA. Release from informational masking by time reversal of native and non-native interfering speech. J Acoust Soc Am. 2005;118:1274–1277.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arai T. Masking speech with its time-reversed signal. Acoust Sci Technol. 2010;31:188–190.
   Google Scholar
• Ellermeier W, Zimmer K. The psychoacoustics of the irrelevant sound effect. Acoust Sci Technol. 2014;35:10–16.
   Google Scholar
• Kahneman D. Attention and Effort [Internet]. 1973. Available from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1421603?origin=crossref
   Google Scholar
• Akeroyd MA. 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. Int J Audiol. 2008;47:S53–S71.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Conway ARA, Cowan N, Bunting MF. The cocktail party phenomenon revisited: the importance of working memory capacity. Psychon Bull Rev. 2001;8:331–335.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schneider BA, Li L, Daneman M. How competing speech interferes with speech comprehension in everyday listening situations. J Am Acad Audiol. 2007;18:559–572.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar