Danish reading span data from 283 hearing-aid users, including a sub-group analysis of their relationship to speech-in-noise performance

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–S71.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ANSI. 1997. Methods for Calculation of the Speech Intelligibility Index. Am. Natl. Stand. Institute, New York, S3.5–1997.
   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, 251–260.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baddeley A., Logie R. & Nimmo-Smith I. 1985. Components of Fluent Reading. J. Mem. Lang, 24, 119–131.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baddeley A.D. 1992. Working Memory. Science, 255, 556–559.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bernstein J.G.W., Summers V., Grassi E. & Grant K.W. 2013. Auditory models of suprathreshold distortion and speech intelligibility in persons with impaired hearing. J Am Acad Audiol, 24, 307–328.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Besser J., Zekveld A.A., Kramer S., 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,. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 55, 194–209.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• CHABA 1988. Speech understanding and aging. J Acoust Soc Am, 83, 859–895.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cox R.M., Alexander G.C., Taylor I.M. & Gray G.A. 1996. Benefit acclimatization in elderly hearing aid users. J Am Acad Audiol, 7, 428–441.
   PubMedGoogle 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, 121–138.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Daneman M. & Carpenter P. 1980. Individual differences in working memory and reading. J Verbal Learning Verbal Behav, 19, 450–466.
   Google Scholar
• Foo C., Rudner M., Rönnberg 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, 618–631.
   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, 581–590.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Füllgrabe C. 2013. Age-dependent changes in temporal-fine-structure processing in the absence of peripheral hearing loss. Am J Audiol, 22(3), 313–315.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Füllgrabe, C., Moore, B.C.J. & Stone, M.A. 2015. Age-group differences in speech identification despite matched audiometrically normal hearing: contributions from auditory temporal processing and cognition. Front Aging Neurosci, 6, 1–25.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Füllgrabe, C., Rosen, S. 2015. Investigating the role of working memory in speech-in-noise identification for listeners with normal hearing. In P. van Dijk, D. Baskent, E. Gaudrain, E. de Kleine, A. Wagner. et al. eds. Psychoacoustics and Cognition in Normal and Impaired Hearing. Springer, Heidelberg.
   Google Scholar
• Gatehouse, S., Naylor, G. & Elberling, C. 2006a. Linear and nonlinear hearing aid fittings – 1. Patterns of benefit. Int J Audiol, 45, 130–152.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gatehouse, S., Naylor, G. & Elberling, C. 2006b. Linear and nonlinear hearing aid fittings – 2. Patterns of candidature. Int J Audiol, 45, 153–171.
   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
• Humes L.E. 2007. The contributions of audibility and cognitive factors to the benefit provided by amplified speech to older adults. J Am Acad Audiol, 18, 590–603.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kilman L., Zekveld A., Hällgren M. & Rönnberg J. 2014. The influence of non-native language proficiency on speech perception performance. Front Psychol, 5, 1–9.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lunner T. 2003. Cognitive function in relation to hearing aid use. lnternational J Audiol, 42(Suppl 1), S49–S58.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lunner T., Rudner M. & Rönnberg J. 2009. Cognition and hearing aids. Scand J Psychol, 50, 395–403.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lunner T. & Sundewall-Thorén 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, 604–617.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maccallum R.C., Zhang S., Preacher K.J. & Rucker D.D. 2002. On the practice of dichotomization of quantitative variables. Psychol Methods, 7, 19–40.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Neher T., Behrens T., Carlile S., Jin C., Kragelund L. et al. 2009. Benefit from spatial separation of multiple talkers in bilateral hearing-aid users: Effects of hearing loss, age, and cognition. Int J Audiol, 48, 758–774.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Neher T., Grimm G., Hohmann V. & Kollmeier B. 2014. Do hearing loss and cognitive function modulate benefit from different binaural noise-reduction settings? Ear Hear, 35, e52–e62.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Neher T., Laugesen S., Søgaard Jensen N. & Kragelund L. 2011. Can basic auditory and cognitive measures predict hearing-impaired listeners’ localization and spatial speech recognition abilities? J Acoust Soc Am, 130, 1542–1558.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ng E.H., Rudner M., Lunner T., Pedersen M.S. & Rönnberg J. 2013. Effects of noise and working memory capacity on memory processing of speech for hearing-aid users. Int J Audiol, 52, 433–441.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google 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
• Preacher K.J., Rucker D.D., Maccallum R.C. & Nicewander W.A. 2005. Use of the Extreme Groups Approach: A Critical Reexamination and New Recommendations. Psychol Methods, 10, 178–192.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Robertson I.H., Ward T., Ridgeway V. & Nimmo-Smith I. 1996. The structure of normal human attention: The Test of Everyday Attention. J Int Neuropsychol Soc, 2, 525–534.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Rönnberg J., Arlinger S., Lyxell B. & Kinnefors C. 1989. Visual evoked potentials: relation to adult speechreading and cognitive function. J Speech Hear Res, 32, 725–735.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Rönnberg J., Lunner T., Zekveld A., Sörqvist P., Danielsson H. et al. 2013. The ease of language understanding (ELU) model: theoretical, empirical, and clinical advances. Front Syst Neurosci, 7, 1–17.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Rönnberg N., Rudner M., Lunner T. & Stenfelt S. 2014. Assessing listening effort by measuring short-term memory storage and processing of speech in noise. Speech Lang Hear, 17, 123–132.
   Google Scholar
• Rudner M., Rönnberg J. & Lunner T. 2011. Working memory supports listening in noise for persons with hearing impairment. J Am Acad Audiol, 22, 156–167.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salthouse T.A. & Babcock R.L. 1991. Decomposing adult age differences in working memory. Dev Psychol, 27, 763–776.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shinn-Cunningham B.G. 2008. Object-based auditory and visual attention. Trends Cogn Sci (Regul. Ed.), 12, 182–186.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Souza, P.E., Arehart, K.H., Kates, J.M., Croghan, N., Gehani, N. et al. 2010. Age, hearing loss and cognition: susceptibility to hearing aid distortion. Poster Presented at Aging and Speech Communication, Bloomingon, IN.
   Google Scholar
• Stone M.A. & Moore B.C.J. 2004. Side effects of fast-acting dynamic range compression that affect intelligibility in a competing speech task. J Acoust Soc Am, 116, 2311–2323.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stone M.A. & Moore B.C.J. 2008. Effects of spectro-temporal modulation changes produced by multi-channel compression on intelligibility in a competing-speech task. J Acoust Soc Am, 123, 1063–1076.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vestergaard, M.D. 2004. Benefit from Amplification of High Frequencies in Hearing Impaired: Aspects of Cochlear Dead Regions and Auditory Acclimatization. Lyngby: The Technical University of Denmark, Acoustic Technology, ISBN 87-91184-32-0, p.1–148.
   Google Scholar
• Wagener K., Josvassen J.L. & Ardenkjær R. 2003. Design, optimization and evaluation of a Danish sentence test in noise. Int J Audiol, 42, 10–17.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Waters G.S. & Caplan D. 1996. The measurement of verbal working memory capacity and its relation to reading comprehension. Q J Exp Psychol A, 49, 51–80.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zekveld A.A., Rudner M., Johnsrude I.S., Festen J.M., van Beek J.H.M. et al. 2011. The influence of semantically related and unrelated text cues on the intelligibility of sentences in noise. Ear Hear, 32, e16–e25.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zekveld A.A., Rudner M., Kramer S.E., Lyzenga J. & Rönnberg J. 2014. Cognitive processing load during listening is reduced more by decreasing voice similarity than by increasing spatial separation between target and masker speech. Front Neurosci, 8, 1–11.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar