J Am Acad Audiol 2019; 30(02): 115-130
DOI: 10.3766/jaaa.17082
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Bilingualism and Speech Understanding in Noise: Auditory and Linguistic Factors

Erika Skoe
*   Department of Speech, Language, and Hearing Sciences, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT
†   Department of Psychological Sciences, Cognitive Sciences Program, Connecticut Institute for Brain and Cognitive Sciences, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT
‡   University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT
Kateryna Karayanidi
*   Department of Speech, Language, and Hearing Sciences, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT
‡   University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
26 May 2020 (online)



Bilingual speakers often have difficulty understanding speech in noisy and acoustically degraded conditions.


The first aim was to examine the potential source(s) of the difficulties that English-proficient bilingual listeners experience when hearing English speech in noise. The second aim was to assess how bilingual listeners perform on a battery of central auditory processing tests.

Research Design:

A mixed design was used in this study.

Study Sample:

Normal-hearing college students (n = 24) participated in this study. The bilingual participants (n = 12) self-reported that they learned a second language before age 9 and the monolingual participants reported that they only knew American English. All participants considered themselves to be native speakers of American English.

Data Collection and Analysis:

Participants were administered the Revised Speech Perception in Noise (R-SPIN) test to assess whether bilingual listeners’ speech understanding in noise reflects auditory factors, linguistic factors, or a combination of the two. To minimize the influence of short-term memory and motor movements, only the final word of a sentence is repeated for this test. Sentence-final words were presented in two linguistic contexts: in the high-predictability condition, the final word can be deduced from the context created by the preceding words, and in the low-predictability condition, it cannot. The R-SPIN test was administered at two signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs) (0 and 3 dB). In addition, the participants were given a reading comprehension test to measure their ability to use context when linguistic stimuli are delivered to the visual, not auditory, modality. The central auditory test battery consisted of three tests: Competing Sentences, Dichotic Digits, and NU-6 Time-Compressed Speech with Reverberation. All test materials were given in American English.


The bilingual and monolingual groups performed similarly in the low-context condition of the R-SPIN test. However, in comparison to the age-matched monolingual group, the bilingual group did not derive the same level of benefit from contextual cues, as seen by a smaller improvement in performance between the low- and high-predictability R-SPIN conditions. The bilingual and monolingual groups showed a similar decrement in performance when the SNR dropped. In addition, bilingual individuals underperformed on the Competing Sentences test when instructed to attend to the left ear. However, the bilingual and monolingual groups performed equally well on the reading comprehension test, as well as on the Time-Compressed Speech with Reverberation and Dichotic Digits tests.


We show that individuals who are exposed to two languages from an early age, and self-report as having a high level of proficiency in English, perform like their monolingual counterparts in acoustically degraded conditions where context is not facilitative, but they underperform in conditions where sentence-level linguistic context is facilitative to understanding. We conclude that deficits observed in noise are likely not due to a perceptual deficit or a lack of linguistic competence, but instead reflect a linguistic system that performs inefficiently in noise. In addition, we do not find evidence of an auditory processing weakness or advantage in our bilingual cohort; however, the use of speech materials to assess auditory processing is a confound.


  • Anaya EM, Pisoni DB, Kronenberger WG. 2016; Long-term musical experience and auditory and visual perceptual abilities under adverse conditions. J Acoust Soc Am 140 (03) 2074-2081
  • Bak TH, Vega-Mendoza M, Sorace A. 2014; Never too late? An advantage on tests of auditory attention extends to late bilinguals. Front Psychol 5: 485
  • Bellis TJ, Billiet C, Ross J. 2011; The utility of visual analogs of central auditory tests in the differential diagnosis of (central) auditory processing disorder and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. J Am Acad Audiol 22 (08) 501-514
  • Bialystok E. 2015; Bilingualism and the development of executive function: the role of attention. Child Dev Perspect 9 (02) 117-121
  • Bialystok E, Craik FI, Green DW, Gollan TH. 2009; Bilingual minds. Psychol Sci Public Interest 10 (03) 89-129
  • Bialystok E, Martin MM, Viswanathan M. 2005; Bilingualism across the lifespan: the rise and fall of inhibitory control. Int J Biling 9 (01) 103-119
  • Bilger RC, Nuetzel JM, Rabinowitz WM, Rzeczkowski C. 1984; Standardization of a test of speech perception in noise. J Speech Hear Res 27 (01) 32-48
  • Bradlow AR, Alexander JA. 2007; Semantic and phonetic enhancements for speech-in-noise recognition by native and non-native listeners. J Acoust Soc Am 121 (04) 2339-2349
  • Costa A, Hernández M, Costa-Faidella J, Sebastián-Gallés N. 2009; On the bilingual advantage in conflict processing: now you see it, now you don’t. Cognition 113 (02) 135-149
  • Cutler A, Weber A, Smits R, Cooper N. 2004; Patterns of English phoneme confusions by native and non-native listeners. J Acoust Soc Am 116 (06) 3668-3678
  • Ganong 3rd WF. 1980; Phonetic categorization in auditory word perception. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 6 (01) 110-125
  • García-Sierra A, Ramírez-Esparza N, Silva-Pereyra J, Siard J, Champlin CA. 2012; Assessing the double phonemic representation in bilingual speakers of Spanish and English: an electrophysiological study. Brain Lang 121 (03) 194-205
  • Gollan TH, Montoya RI, Cera C, Sandoval TC. 2008; More use almost always a means a smaller frequency effect: aging, bilingualism, and the weaker links hypothesis. J Mem Lang 58 (03) 787-814
  • Green DW. 1998; Mental control of the bilingual lexico-semantic system. Biling Lang Cogn 1 (02) 67-81
  • Gresele AD, Garcia MV, Torres EM, Santos SN, Costa MJ. 2013; Bilingualism and auditory processing abilities: performance of adults in dichotic listening tests. CoDAS 25 (06) 506-512
  • Hart B, Risley TR. 1995. Meaningful Differences in the Everyday Experience of Young American Children. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing;
  • Hervais-Adelman A, Pefkou M, Golestani N. 2014; Bilingual speech-in-noise: neural bases of semantic context use in the native language. Brain Lang 132: 1-6
  • Hugdahl K, Westerhausen R, Alho K, Medvedev S, Laine M, Hämäläinen H. 2009; Attention and cognitive control: unfolding the dichotic listening story. Scand J Psychol 50 (01) 11-22
  • Kerkhofs R, Dijkstra T, Chwilla DJ, de Bruijn ER. 2006; Testing a model for bilingual semantic priming with interlingual homographs: RT and N400 effects. Brain Res 1068 (01) 170-183
  • 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 Erratum in: J Acoust Soc Am 2006;119(3):1888.
  • Krizman J, Bradlow AR, Lam SS-Y, Kraus N. 2016; How bilinguals listen in noise: linguistic and non-linguistic factors. Biling Lang Cogn 20: 842-843
  • Krizman J, Marian V, Shook A, Skoe E, Kraus N. 2012; Subcortical encoding of sound is enhanced in bilinguals and relates to executive function advantages. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 109 (20) 7877-7881
  • Krizman J, Skoe E, Marian V, Kraus N. 2014; Bilingualism increases neural response consistency and attentional control: evidence for sensory and cognitive coupling. Brain Lang 128 (01) 34-40
  • Krizman J, Slater J, Skoe E, Marian V, Kraus N. 2015; Neural processing of speech in children is influenced by extent of bilingual experience. Neurosci Lett 585: 48-53
  • Lagacé J, Jutras B, Gagné J-P. 2010; Auditory processing disorder and speech perception problems in noise: finding the underlying origin. Am J Audiol 19 (01) 17-25
  • Lagacé J, Jutras B, Giguère C, Gagné J-P. 2011; Speech perception in noise: exploring the effect of linguistic context in children with and without auditory processing disorder. Int J Audiol 50 (06) 385-395
  • Luce PA, Pisoni DB. 1998; Recognizing spoken words: the neighborhood activation model. Ear Hear 19 (01) 1-36
  • Lucks Mendel L, Widner H. 2016; Speech perception in noise for bilingual listeners with normal hearing. Int J Audiol 55 (02) 126-134
  • Ludwig AA, Fuchs M, Kruse E, Uhlig B, Kotz SA, Rübsamen R. 2014; Auditory processing disorders with and without central auditory discrimination deficits. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 15 (03) 441-464
  • Mägiste E. 1979; The competing language systems of the multilingual: A developmental study of decoding and encoding processes. J Verbal Learn Verbal Behav 18 (01) 79-89
  • Magnuson JS, Dixon JA, Tanenhaus MK, Aslin RN. 2007; The dynamics of lexical competition during spoken word recognition. Cogn Sci 31 (01) 133-156
  • Marian V, Blumenfeld HK, Boukrina OV. 2008; Sensitivity to phonological similarity within and across languages. J Psycholinguist Res 37 (03) 141-170
  • Mayo LH, Florentine M, Buus S. 1997; Age of second-language acquisition and perception of speech in noise. J Speech Lang Hear Res 40 (03) 686-693
  • McClelland JL, Elman JL. 1986; The TRACE model of speech perception. Cognit Psychol 18 (01) 1-86
  • Montagni I, Peru A. 2011; Effects of language and music learning on pitch and duration perception: an experimental investigation. Int J Psychol Behav Sci 1 (01) 33-40
  • Moore DR, Ferguson MA, Edmondson-Jones AM, Ratib S, Riley A. 2010; Nature of auditory processing disorder in children. Pediatrics 126 (02) e382-e390
  • Musiek FE. 1983; Assessment of central auditory dysfunction: the dichotic digit test revisited. Ear Hear 4 (02) 79-83
  • 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
  • Paap KR, Johnson HA, Sawi O. 2014; Are bilingual advantages dependent upon specific tasks or specific bilingual experiences?. J Cogn Psychol 26 (06) 615-639
  • Paap KR, Johnson HA, Sawi O. 2015; Bilingual advantages in executive functioning either do not exist or are restricted to very specific and undetermined circumstances. Cortex 69: 265-278
  • Parbery-Clark A, Skoe E, Lam C, Kraus N. 2009; Musician enhancement for speech-in-noise. Ear Hear 30 (06) 653-661
  • Paulmann S, Elston-Güttler KE, Gunter TC, Kotz SA. 2006; Is bilingual lexical access influenced by language context?. Neuroreport 17 (07) 727-731
  • Ramírez-Esparza N, García-Sierra A, Kuhl PK. 2014; Look who’s talking: speech style and social context in language input to infants are linked to concurrent and future speech development. Dev Sci 17 (06) 880-891
  • Reetzke R, Lam BP-W, Xie Z, Sheng L, Chandrasekaran B. 2016; Effect of simultaneous bilingualism on speech intelligibility across different masker types, modalities, and signal-to-noise ratios in school-age children. PLoS One 11 (12) e0168048
  • Rogers CL, Lister JJ, Febo DM, Besing JM, Abrams HB. 2006; Effects of bilingualism, noise, and reverberation on speech perception by listeners with normal hearing. Appl Psychol 27 (03) 465-485
  • Schmidtke J. 2016; The bilingual disadvantage in speech understanding in noise is likely a frequency effect related to reduced language exposure. Front Psychol 7: 678
  • Shi L-F. 2010; Perception of acoustically degraded sentences in bilingual listeners who differ in age of English acquisition. J Speech Lang Hear Res 53 (04) 821-835
  • Shi LF. 2011; How “proficient” is proficient? Subjective proficiency as a predictor of bilingual listeners’ recognition of English words. Am J Audiol 20 (01) 19-32
  • Shi LF. 2012; Contribution of linguistic variables to bilingual listeners’ perception of degraded English sentences. J Speech Lang Hear Res 55 (01) 219-234
  • Shi L-F, Azcona G, Buten L. 2015; Acceptance noise level: effects of the speech signal, babble, and listener language. J Speech Lang Hear Res 58 (02) 497-508
  • Shi L-F, Farooq N. 2012; Bilingual listeners’ perception of temporally manipulated English passages. J Speech Lang Hear Res 55 (01) 125-138
  • Skoe E, Burakiewicz E, Figueiredo M, Hardin M. 2017; Basic neural processing of sound in adults is influenced by bilingual experience. Neuroscience 349: 278-290
  • Slater J, Kraus N. 2016; The role of rhythm in perceiving speech in noise: a comparison of percussionists, vocalists and non-musicians. Cogn Process 17 (01) 79-87
  • Slater J, Skoe E, Strait DL, O’Connell S, Thompson E, Kraus N. 2015; Music training improves speech-in-noise perception: longitudinal evidence from a community-based music program. Behav Brain Res 291: 244-252
  • Soveri A, Laine M, Hämäläinen H, Hugdahl K. 2011; Bilingual advantage in attentional control: evidence from the forced-attention dichotic listening paradigm. Biling Lang Cogn 14 (03) 371-378
  • Sperling AJ, Lu ZL, Manis FR, Seidenberg MS. 2005; Deficits in perceptual noise exclusion in developmental dyslexia. Nat Neurosci 8 (07) 862-863
  • Studebaker GA. 1985; A “rationalized” arcsine transform. J Speech Hear Res 28 (03) 455-462
  • Tabri D, Abou Chacra KM, Pring T. 2011; Speech perception in noise by monolingual, bilingual and trilingual listeners. Int J Lang Commun Disord 46 (04) 411-422
  • Taft M. 1979; Recognition of affixed words and the word frequency effect. Mem Cognit 7 (04) 263-272
  • Vihla M, Kiviniemi K, Salmelin R. 2002; Auditory cortical activation in Finnish and Swedish speaking Finns: a magnetoencephalographic study. Neurosci Lett 322 (03) 141-144
  • von Hapsburg D, Bahng J. 2006; Acceptance of background noise levels in bilingual (Korean–English) listeners. J Am Acad Audiol 17 (09) 649-658
  • von Hapsburg D, Peña ED. 2002; Understanding bilingualism and its impact on speech audiometry. J Speech Lang Hear Res 45 (01) 202-213
  • Weber A, Cutler A. 2004; Lexical competition in non-native spoken-word recognition. J Mem Lang 50 (01) 1-25
  • Willeford JA. 1978. Sentence tests of central auditory dysfunction. In: Katz J, Medwetsky L, Burkard R. Handbook of Clinical Audiology. Philadelphia, PA: Wolters Kluwer Health;
  • Wilson RH, Abrams HB, Pillion AL. 2003; A word-recognition task in multitalker babble using a descending presentation mode from 24 dB to 0 dB signal to babble. J Rehabil Res Dev 40 (04) 321-327
  • Wilson RH, Preece JP, Salamon DL, Sperry JL, Bornstein SP. 1994; Effects of time compression and time compression plus reverberation on the intelligibility of Northwestern University Auditory Test No. 6. J Am Acad Audiol 5 (04) 269-277
  • Woodcock R, Mather N, McGrew K. 2001. Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Cognitive Abilities Examiner’s Manual. Itasca, IL: Riverside;
  • Zekveld AA, Kramer SE. 2014; Cognitive processing load across a wide range of listening conditions: insights from pupillometry. Psychophysiology 51 (03) 277-284