Robust relationship between reading span and speech recognition in noise

References

• Akeroyd M.A. 2008. 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, 47, Suppl 2, S53–71.
   Google Scholar
• ANSI 2004. American National Standards Institute Specification for Audiometers. New York: ANSI.
   Google Scholar
• Arehart K.H., Souza P., Baca R. & Kates J.M. 2013. Working memory, age, and hearing loss: Susceptibility to hearing aid distortion. Ear Hear, 34, 251–60.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baddeley A. 2000. The episodic buffer: A new component of working memory? Trends Cogn Sci, 4, 417–423.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baddeley A., Logie R.H., Nimmo-Smith I. & Brereton N. 1985. Components of fluid reading. J Mem Lang, 24, 119–131.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barrouillet P., Bernardin S. & Camos V. 2004. Time constraints and resource sharing in adults’ working memory spans. J Exp Psychol Gen, 133, 83–100.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Besser J., Koelewijn T., Zekveld A.A., Kramer S.E. & Festen J.M. 2013. How linguistic closure and verbal working memory relate to speech recognition in noise: A review. Trends Amplif, 17, 75–93.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Brown J.A., Fishco V.V. & Hanna G. 1993. Nelson-Denny Reading Test: Manual for scoring and interpretation.
   Google Scholar
• Caplan D. & Waters G. 2005. The relationship between age, processing speed, working memory capacity, and language comprehension. Memory, 13, 403–413.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen J.D., Macwhinney B., Flatt M. & Provost J. 1993. PsyScope: A new graphic interactive environment for designing psychology experiments. Behavioral Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 25, 257–271.
   Google Scholar
• Cox R.M. & Xu J. 2010. Short and long compression release times: Speech understanding, real-world preferences, and association with cognitive ability. J Am Acad Audiol, 21, 121–38.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Craik F.I.M. & Lockhart R.S. 1972. Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. J Verb Learn Verb Behav, 11, 671–684.
   Google Scholar
• Craik F.I.M. & Tulving E. 1975. Depth of processing and the retention of words in episodic memory. J Exp Psychol Gen, 104, 268–294.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Daneman M. & Carpenter P.A. 1980. Individual differences in working memory and reading. J Verb Learn Verb Behav, 19, 450–66.
   Google Scholar
• Desjardins J.L. & Doherty K.A. 2013. Age-related changes in listening effort for various types of masker noises. Ear Hear, 34, 261–72.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Doherty K.A., Desjardins J. & Hoyer W. 2012. Benefit of early intervention of age-related hearing loss. Paper presented at the Academy of Rehabilitative Audiology Institute. Providence, USA.
   Google Scholar
• Dupuis K., Pichora-Fuller M.K., Chasteen A.L., Marchuk V., Singh G. et al. 2014. Effects of hearing and vision impairments on the Montreal Cognitive Assessment. Neuropsychol Dev Cogn B Aging Neuropsychol Cogn, Oct 17, 1–25. [epub ahead of print]
   Google Scholar
• Ehrlich M.-F., Brebion J. & Tardieu H. 1994. Working-memory capacity and reading comprehension in young and older adults. Psychol Res, 56, 110–115.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Folstein M.F., Folstein S.E. & McHugh P.R. ”Mini-mental state”. A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J Psychiatr Res, 12, 189–198.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Foo C., Rudner M., Ronnberg J. & Lunner T. 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, 618–31.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Friedman N.P. & Miyake A. 2005. Comparison of four scoring methods for the reading span test. Behav Res Methods, 37, 581–90.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gatehouse S., Naylor G. & Elberling C. 2006. Linear and nonlinear hearing aid fittings: 2. Patterns of candidature. Int J Audiol, 45, 153–71.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hair J.F.J., Black W.C., Babin B.J. & Anderson R.E. 2010. Multivariate Data Analysis, Upper Saddle River, USA: Prentice Hall.
   Google Scholar
• He C., Brown C., Covington M.A. & Naci L. 2004. How complex is that sentence? A proposed revision of the Rosenberg and Abbeduto D-Level scale. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, Boston, USA.
   Google Scholar
• Healey M.K. & Miyake A. 2009. The role of attention during retrieval in working-memory span: A dual-task study. Q J Exp Psychol (Hove), 62, 733–45.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Humes L.E., Nelson K.J., Pisoni D.B. & Lively S.E. 1993. Effects of age on serial recall of natural and synthetic speech. J Speech Hear Res, 36, 634–9.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Killion M.C., Niquette P.A., Gudmundsen G. I., Revit L.J. & Banerjee S. 2004. Development of a quick speech-in-noise test for measuring signal-to-noise ratio loss in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am, 116, 2395–405.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lin J.S., O’Connor E., Rossom R.C., Perdue L.A., Burda B.U. et al. 2013. Screening for cognitive impairment in older adults: An evidence update for the U.S. Preventative Services Task Force. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
   Google Scholar
• Lunner T. & Sundewall-Thoren E. 2007. Interactions between cognition, compression, and listening conditions: Effects on speech-in-noise performance in a two-channel hearing aid. J Am Acad Audiol, 18, 604–17.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meister H., Schreitmuller S., Grugel L., Beutner D. & Walger M. 2013. Examining speech perception in noise and cognitive functions in the elderly. Am J Audiol, 22, 310–12.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miyake A. & Shah P. (eds.) 1999. Models of Working Memory, New York: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Nasreddine M.D., Phillips N.A., Bedirian V., Charbonneau S., Whitehead V. et al. 2005. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment, MoCA: A brief screening tool for mild cognitive impairment. J Am Geriatr Soc, 53, 695–699.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ng E.H., Rudner M., Lunner T., Pedersen M.S. & Ronnberg J. 2013. Effects of noise and working memory capacity on memory processing of speech for hearing-aid users. Int J Audiol, 52, 433–41.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ohlenforst B., Souza P. & Macdonald E. 2014. Interaction of working memory, compressor speed and background noise characteristics. Paper presented at the American Auditory Society. Scottsdale, USA.
   Google Scholar
• Ronnberg J., Arlinger S., Lyxell B. & Kinnefors C. 1989. Visual evoked potentials: Relation to adult speechreading and cognitive function. J Speech Hear Res, 32, 725–35.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ronnberg J., Lunner T., Zekveld A., Sorqvist P., Danielsson H. et al. 2013. The ease of language understanding (ELU) model: Theoretical, empirical, and clinical advances. Front Syst Neurosci, 7, 31.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ronnberg J., Rudner M., Lunner T. & Zekveld A. 2010. When cognition kicks in: Working memory and speech understanding in noise. Noise and Health, 12, 263–9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rudner M., Foo C., Ronnberg J. & Lunner T. 2009. Cognition and aided speech recognition in noise: Specific role for cognitive factors following nine-week experience with adjusted compression settings in hearing aids. Scand J Psychol, 50, 405–18.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shah P. & Miyake A. 1996. The separability of working memory resources for spatial thinking and language processing: An individual differences approach. J Exp Psychol Gen, 125, 4–27.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sirow L. & Souza P. 2013. Selecting the optimal signal processing for your patient. Audiology Practices, 5, 25–29.
   Google Scholar
• Smith S.L. 2012. Development of a new auditory working memory measure: Preliminary results. Paper presented at the Academy of Rehabilitative Audiology Institute. Providence, USA.
   Google Scholar
• Souza P. & Sirow L. 2014. Relating working memory to compression parameters in clinically fit hearing aids. Am J Audiol, 23, 394–401.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Unsworth N. & Engle R. W. 2007. On the division of short-term and working memory: An examination of simple and complex span and their relation to higher order abilities. Psychol Bull, 133, 1038–1066.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Unsworth N., Spillers G.J. & Brewer G.A. 2012. Working memory capacity and retrieval limitations from long-term memory: An examination of differences in accessibility. Q J Exp Psychol, 65, 2397–2410.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ward A., Arrighi H.M., Michels S. & Cedarbaum J.M. 2012. Mild cognitive impairment: Disparity of incidence and prevalence estimates. Alzheimer's & Dementia: The Journal of the Alzheimer's Association, 8, 14–21.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Waters G., Caplan D. & Rochon E. 1995. Processing capacity and sentence comprehension in patients with Alzheimer's disease. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 12, 1–30.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Waters G.S. & Caplan D. 1996. The measurement of verbal working memory and its relationship to reading comprehension. Q J Exp Psychol, 49A, 51–79.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Winblad B., Palmer K., Kivipelto M., Jelic V., Fratiglioni L. et al. 2004. Mild cognitive impairment: Beyond controversies, towards a consensus: Report of the International Working Group on Mild Cognitive Impairment. J Intern Med, 256, 240–246.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zekveld A.A., Rudner M., Johnsrude I.S. & Ronnberg J. 2013. The effects of working memory capacity and semantic cues on the intelligibility of speech in noise. J Acoust Soc Am, 134, 2225–34.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar