Download PDF
J Am Acad Audiol 2017; 28(03): 209-221
DOI: 10.3766/jaaa.16025
Articles
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

The Effect of Signal-to-Noise Ratio on Linguistic Processing in a Semantic Judgment Task: An Aging Study

Nicholas Stanley
*   University of South Alabama, Mobile, Al
,
Tara Davis
*   University of South Alabama, Mobile, Al
,
Julie Estis
*   University of South Alabama, Mobile, Al
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
26 June 2020 (online)

   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background:

Aging effects on speech understanding in noise have primarily been assessed through speech recognition tasks. Recognition tasks, which focus on bottom-up, perceptual aspects of speech understanding, intentionally limit linguistic and cognitive factors by asking participants to only repeat what they have heard. On the other hand, linguistic processing tasks require bottom-up and top-down (linguistic, cognitive) processing skills and are, therefore, more reflective of speech understanding abilities used in everyday communication. The effect of signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) on linguistic processing ability is relatively unknown for either young (YAs) or older adults (OAs).

Purpose:

To determine if reduced SNRs would be more deleterious to the linguistic processing of OAs than YAs, as measured by accuracy and reaction time in a semantic judgment task in competing speech.

Research Design:

In the semantic judgment task, participants indicated via button press whether word pairs were a semantic Match or No Match. This task was performed in quiet, as well as, +3, 0, −3, and −6 dB SNR with two-talker speech competition.

Study Sample:

Seventeen YAs (20–30 yr) with normal hearing sensitivity and 17 OAs (60–68 yr) with normal hearing sensitivity or mild-to-moderate sensorineural hearing loss within age-appropriate norms.

Data Collection and Analysis:

Accuracy, reaction time, and false alarm rate were measured and analyzed using a mixed design analysis of variance.

Results:

A decrease in SNR level significantly reduced accuracy and increased reaction time in both YAs and OAs. However, poor SNRs affected accuracy and reaction time of Match and No Match word pairs differently. Accuracy for Match pairs declined at a steeper rate than No Match pairs in both groups as SNR decreased. In addition, reaction time for No Match pairs increased at a greater rate than Match pairs in more difficult SNRs, particularly at −3 and −6 dB SNR. False-alarm rates indicated that participants had a response bias to No Match pairs as the SNR decreased. Age-related differences were limited to No Match pair accuracies at −6 dB SNR.

Conclusions:

The ability to correctly identify semantically matched word pairs was more susceptible to disruption by a poor SNR than semantically unrelated words in both YAs and OAs. The effect of SNR on this semantic judgment task implies that speech competition differentially affected the facilitation of semantically related words and the inhibition of semantically incompatible words, although processing speed, as measured by reaction time, remained faster for semantically matched pairs. Overall, the semantic judgment task in competing speech elucidated the effect of a poor listening environment on the higher order processing of words.

Key Words

aging - cognition - comprehension - hearing - semantics - speech understanding
 

  • REFERENCES

  • Adobe Systems Inc 2004. Adobe Audition. Version 1.5. San Jose, CA: Adobe Systems Inc; [Computer software]
    Google Scholar
  • Akeroyd MA. 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 (02) (Suppl) S53-S71
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Annett M. 1970; A classification of hand preference by association analysis. Br J Psychol 61 (03) 303-321
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Aydelott J, Dick F, Mills DL. 2006; Effects of acoustic distortion and semantic context on event-related potentials to spoken words. Psychophysiology 43 (05) 454-464
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Baum LF, Hearn MP, Denslow WW. 2000. The Annotated Wizard of Oz. New York, NY: Norton;
    Google Scholar
  • Brown C, Hagoort P. 1993; The processing nature of the n400: evidence from masked priming. J Cogn Neurosci 5 (01) 34-44
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Brungart DS, Simpson BD, Ericson MA, Scott KR. 2001; Informational and energetic masking effects in the perception of multiple simultaneous talkers. J Acoust Soc Am 110 (5 Pt 1) 2527-2538
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Buckner RL. 2004; Memory and executive function in aging and AD: multiple factors that cause decline and reserve factors that compensate. Neuron 44 (01) 195-208
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Coltheart M. 1981; The MRC psycholinguistic database. Q J Exp Psychol 33: 497-505
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Committee on Hearing and Bioacoustics and Biomechanics (CHABA) 1988; Speech understanding and aging. J Acoust Soc Am 83 (03) 859-895
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Compumedics Neuroscan 2003. Stim2 . Charlotte, NC: Compumedics Neuroscan; [Computer software]
    Google Scholar
  • Cruickshanks KJ, Wiley TL, Tweed TS, Klein BE, Klein R, Mares-Perlman JA, Nondahl DM. 1998; Prevalence of hearing loss in older adults in Beaver Dam, Wisconsin. The Epidemiology of Hearing Loss Study. Am J Epidemiol 148 (09) 879-886
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Cullington HE, Zeng FG. 2008; Speech recognition with varying numbers and types of competing talkers by normal-hearing, cochlear-implant, and implant simulation subjects. J Acoust Soc Am 123 (01) 450-461
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Davis T.. 2009. The effect of middle age on interaural asymmetry in a competing speech task. Dissertation Abstract International DAI-B 71-01. PhD dissertation University of Texas at Dallas; Richardson, TX:
    Google Scholar
  • Davis TM, Jerger J. 2014; The effect of middle age on the late positive component of the auditory event-related potential. J Am Acad Audiol 25 (02) 199-209
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Davis TM, Jerger J, Martin J. 2013; Electrophysiological evidence of augmented interaural asymmetry in middle-aged listeners. J Am Acad Audiol 24 (03) 159-173
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Davis T, Martin J, Jerger J, Greenwald R, Mehta J. 2012; Auditory-cognitive interactions underlying interaural asymmetry in an adult listener: a case study. Int J Audiol 51 (02) 124-134
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Davis T, Stanley N, Foran L. 2015; Age-related effects of dichotic attentional mode on interaural asymmetry: an AERP study with independent component analysis. J Am Acad Audiol 26 (05) 461-477
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Department of Veteran Affairs 1998. Tonal and Speech Materials for Auditory Perceptual Assessment (DISC 2.0) . Mountain Home, TN: James H. Quillen VA Medical Center;
    Google Scholar
  • Friederici AD. 2002; Towards a neural basis of auditory sentence processing. Trends Cogn Sci 6 (02) 78-84
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Helfer KS, Freyman RL. 2008; Aging and speech-on-speech masking. Ear Hear 29 (01) 87-98
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Helfer KS, Freyman RL. 2014; Stimulus and listener factors affecting age-related changes in competing speech perception. J Acoust Soc Am 136 (02) 748-759
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Humes LE. 1996; Speech understanding in the elderly. J Am Acad Audiol 7 (03) 161-167
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Jerger J, Greenwald R, Wambacq I, Seipel A, Moncrieff D. 2000; Toward a more ecologically valid measure of speech understanding in background noise. J Am Acad Audiol 11 (05) 273-282
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Jerger J, Moncrieff D, Greenwald R, Wambacq I, Seipel A. 2000; Effect of age on interaural asymmetry of event-related potentials in a dichotic listening task. J Am Acad Audiol 11 (07) 383-389
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Jerger J, Wilson R, Margolis R. 2014; Suggestion for terminological reform in speech audiometry. J Am Acad Audiol 25 (02) 229-230
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Kalikow DN, Stevens KN, Elliott LL. 1977; Development of a test of speech intelligibility in noise using sentence materials with controlled word predictability. J Acoust Soc Am 61 (05) 1337-1351
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Killion MC, Niquette PA, Gudmundsen GI, Revit LJ, 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 (4 Pt 1) 2395-2405
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Martin J, Jerger J, Mehta J. 2007; Divided-attention and directed-attention listening modes in children with dichotic deficits: an event-related potential study. J Am Acad Audiol 18 (01) 34-53
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • McArdle R, Chisolm T. 2009. Speech audiometry. In: Katz J, Medwetsky L, Burkard R, Hood L. Handbook of Clinical Audiology. Baltimore, MD: Lippincott, Williams & Wilkens; 64-79
    Google Scholar
  • Moll K, Cardillo E, Utman J. 2001. Effects of competing speech on sentence-word priming: semantic, perceptual, and attentional factors. In: Moore JD, Stennings K. Proceedings of the Twenty-Third Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.; 651-656
    Google Scholar
  • Nasreddine ZS, Phillips NA, Bédirian V, Charbonneau S, Whitehead V, Collin I, Cummings JL, Chertkow H. 2005; The Montreal Cognitive Assessment, MoCA: a brief screening tool for mild cognitive impairment. J Am Geriatr Soc 53 (04) 695-699
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Neely J, Keefe D. 1989. Semantic context effects on visual word processing: a hybrid prospective/retrospective processing theory. In: Bower GH. The Psychology of Learning and Motivation: Advances in Research and Theory. Vol. 24 New York, NY: Academic Press;
    Google Scholar
  • Nilsson M, Soli SD, Sullivan JA. 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 (02) 1085-1099
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Perrin F, García-Larrea L. 2003; Modulation of the N400 potential during auditory phonological/semantic interaction. Brain Res Cogn Brain Res 17 (01) 36-47
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Praamstra P, Stegeman DF. 1993; Phonological effects on the auditory N400 event-related brain potential. Brain Res Cogn Brain Res 1 (02) 73-86
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Romei L, Wambacq IJ, Besing J, Koehnke J, Jerger J. 2011; Neural indices of spoken word processing in background multi-talker babble. Int J Audiol 50 (05) 321-333
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Rönnberg J, Lunner T, Zekveld A, Sörqvist P, Danielsson H, Lyxell B, Dahlström Ö, Signoret C, Stenfelt S, Pichora-Fuller MK, Rudner M. 2013; The Ease of Language Understanding (ELU) model: theoretical, empirical, and clinical advances. Front Syst Neurosci 7: 31
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Rönnberg J, Rudner M, Lunner T, Zekveld AA. 2010; When cognition kicks in: working memory and speech understanding in noise. Noise Health 12 (49) 263-269
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Salthouse TA, Atkinson TM, Berish DE. 2003; Executive functioning as a potential mediator of age-related cognitive decline in normal adults. J Exp Psychol Gen 132 (04) 566-594
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Schneider BA, Daneman M, Pichora-Fuller MK. 2002; Listening in aging adults: from discourse comprehension to psychoacoustics. Can J Exp Psychol 56 (03) 139-152
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Schneider B, Pichora-Fuller K. 2000. Implications of perceptual deterioration for cognitive aging research. In: Craik FIM, Salthouse TA. The Handbook of Aging and Cognition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 155-219
    Google Scholar
  • Spyridakou C, Bamiou D. 2015; Need of speech-in-noise testing to assess listening difficulties in older adults. Audiol Med 13 (02) 65-76
    Google Scholar
  • Stanislaw H, Todorov N. 1999; Calculation of signal detection theory measures. Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput 31 (01) 137-149
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Syntrillium Software Corporation 2003. Cool Edit Pro Version 2.1. Phoenix, AZ: Syntrillium Software Corporation; [Computer software]
    Google Scholar
  • Tun PA, Williams VA, Small BJ, Hafter ER. 2012; The effects of aging on auditory processing and cognition. Am J Audiol 21 (02) 344-350
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Tun PA, Wingfield A. 1999; One voice too many: adult age differences in language processing with different types of distracting sounds. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci 54B (05) 317-327
    Google Scholar
  • Van Overschelde JP, Rawson KA, Dunlosky J. 2004; Category norms: an updated and expanded version of the norms. J Mem Lang 50 (03) 289-335
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Wilson M. 1988; The MRC psycholinguistic database: machine readable dictionary, version 2. Behav Res Methods 20: 6-10
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Wingfield A, Tun P. 2001; Spoken language comprehension in older adults: interactions between sensory and cognitive change in normal aging. Semin Hear 22: 287-302
    Article in Thieme ConnectGoogle Scholar
  • Zekveld AA, Rudner M, Johnsrude IS, Rönnberg J. 2013; The effects of working memory capacity and semantic cues on the intelligibility of speech in noise. J Acoust Soc Am 134 (03) 2225-2234
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar