The influence of lexical-access ability and vocabulary knowledge on measures of 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-hearing and hearing-impaired adults. Int J Audiol, 47(Suppl. 2), S53–S71.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baayen H., Piepenbrock R. & Van Rijn H. 1993. The CELEX Lexical Database (CD-ROM). Philadelphia, USA: University of Pennsylvania, Linguistic Data Consortium.
   Google Scholar
• Bailey I.L. & Lovie J.E. 1980. The design and use of a new near-vision chart. Am J Optom Physiol Opt, 57, 378–387.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Balota D.A. & Chumbley J.I. 1984. Are lexical decisions a good measure of lexical access? The role of word frequency in the neglected decision stage. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform, 10(3), 340–357.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Balota D.A. & Chumbley J.I. 1985. The locus of word-frequency effects in the pronunciation task: Lexical access and/or production? J Mem Lang, 24, 89–106.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Benichov J., Cox L.C., Tun P.A. & Wingfield A. 2012. Word recognition within a linguistic context: Effects of age, hearing acuity, verbal ability, and cognitive function. Ear Hear, 33(2), 250–256.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Besser J., Zekveld A.A., Kramer S.E., Rönnberg J. & Festen J.M. 2012. New measures of masked text recognition in relation to speech-in noise perception and their associations with age and cognitive abilities. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 55, 194–209.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bradlow A.R. & Alexander J.A. 2007. Semantic and phonetic enhancements for speech-in-noise recognition by native and non-native listeners. J Acoust Soc Am, 121(4), 2339–2349.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carreiras M., Perea M. & Grainger J. 1997. Effects of orthographic neighbourhood in visual word recognition: Cross-task comparisons. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn, 23(4), 857–871.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Groot A.M.B., Borgwaldt S., Bos M. & Van den Eijnden E. 2002. Lexical decision and word naming in bilinguals: Language effects and task effects. J Mem Lang, 47, 91–124.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Groot A.M.B. 2011. Language and Cognition in Bilinguals and Multilinguals: An Introduction, New York, Hove: Psychology Press.
   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
• Goverts S.T., Huysmans E., Kramer S.E., De Groot A.M.B. & Houtgast T. 2011. On the use of the text reception threshold test and the distortion-sensitivity approach in examining the role of linguistic ability in speech understanding in noise. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 54(6), 1702–1708.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grainger J. & Segui J. 1990. Neighbourhood frequency effects in visual word recognition: A comparison of lexical decision and masked identification latencies. Percept Psychophys, 471, 191–198.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grainger J. & Jacobs A.M. 1996. Orthographic processing in visual word recognition: A multiple read-out model. Psychol Rev, 103, 518–565.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Horn J.L. & Cattell R.B. 1967. Age differences in fluid and crystallized intelligence. Acta Psychol, 26, 107–129.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Houtgast T. & Festen J.M. 2008. On the auditory and cognitive functions that may explain an individual’s elevation of the speech reception threshold in noise. Int J Audiol, 47, 287–295.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaandorp M.W., Smits C., Merkus P., Goverts S.T. & Festen J.M. 2015. Assessing speech recognition abilities with digits in noise in cochlear implant and hearing-aid users. Int J Audiol, 54, 48–57
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luteijn F. & Barelds D.P.H. 2004. GIT2 Groninger Intelligentie Test 2. Handleiding. Amsterdam: Harcourt Test Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Lyxell B., Andersson J., Andersson U., Arlinger S., Bredberg G. et al. 1998. Phonological representation and speech understanding with cochlear implants in deafened adults. Scand J Psychol, 39, 175–179.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McRae K., Jared D. & Seidenberg S. 1990. On the roles of frequency and lexical access in word naming. J Mem Lang, 29, 43–65.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nilsson M.J., Soli S.D. & Sullivan J.A. 1994. Development of the hearing in noise test for the measurement of speech reception thresholds in quiet and in noise. J Acoust Soc Am, 95, 1085–1099.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pichora-Fuller M.K. 2003. Cognitive aging and auditory information processing. Int J Audiol, 42, 2S26–2S32.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pichora-Fuller M.K. 2008. Use of supportive context by younger and older adult listeners: Balancing bottom-up and top-down information processing. Int J Audiol, 48 (Suppl. 2), S72–S82.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pichora-Fuller M.K. & Levitt H. 2012. Speech comprehension training and auditory and cognitive processing in older adults. Am J Audiol, 21, 351–357.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Plomp R. & Mimpen A.M. 1979. Improving the reliability of testing the speech reception threshold for sentences. Audiology, 18, 43–52.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ratcliff R., Comez P. & McKoon G. 2004. A diffusion model account of the lexical decision task. Psychol Rev, 111(1), 159–182.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rönnberg J., Samuelsson E. & Borg E. 2000. Visual cognitive tests, central auditory function, and auditory communication. Scand Audiol, 29, 196–206.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rönnberg J., Rudner M., Foo C. & Lunner T. 2008, Cognition counts: A working memory system for ease of language understanding (ELU). Int J Audiol, 47 (Suppl. 2), S99–S105.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rubenstein H., Lewis S.S. & Rubenstein M.A. 1971. Evidence for phonemic recoding in visual word recognition. J Verbal Learning Verbal Behav, 10, 645–657.
   Google Scholar
• Smits C., Goverts S.T. & Festen J.M. 2013. The digits-in-noise test: Assessing auditory speech recognition abilities in noise. J Acoust Soc Am, 133(3), 1693–1706.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smits C. & Festen J.M. 2013. The interpretation of speech reception threshold data in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners: II. Fluctuating noise. J Acoust Soc Am, 133(5), 3004–3015.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tabossi P. & Laghi L. 1992. Semantic priming in the pronunciation of words in two writing systems: Italian and English. Mem Cogn, 20, 315–328.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Der Maas H.L.J., Dolan C.V., Grasman R.P.P.P., Wicherts J.M., Huizenga H.M. et al. 2006. A dynamic model of general intelligence: The positive manifold of intelligence by Mutualism. Psychol Rev, 113, 842–861.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Versfeld N.J., Daalder L., Festen J.M. & Houtgast T. 2000. Method for the selection of sentence materials for efficient measurement of the speech reception threshold. J Acoust Soc Am, 107, 1671–1684.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Rooij J.C.G.M. & Plomp R. 1990. Auditive and cognitive factors in speech perception by elderly listeners. II: Multivariate analyses. J Acoust Soc Am, 88(6), 2611–2624.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Wijngaarden S.J., Steeneken H.J.M. & Houtgast T. 2002. Quantifying the intelligibility of speech in noise for non-native listeners. J Acoust Soc Am, 111, 1906–1916.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weiss D. & Dempsey J.J. 2008. Performance of bilingual speakers on the English and Spanish versions of the hearing in noise test (HINT). J Am Acad Audiol, 19, 5–17.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang X. & Humes L.E. 2010. Factors influencing recognition of interrupted speech. J Acoust Soc Am, 128(4), 2100–2111.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar