Cognitive compensation of speech perception in hearing loss: How and to what degree can it be achieved?
In daily life, speech is often degraded due to environmental factors, but its perception can be enhanced using cognitive mechanisms. Such compensation not only relies on increased cognitive processing (listening effort), but also makes use of context, linguistic knowledge and constraints. In hearing impairment, the speech signal is additionally and intrinsically degraded due to loss of audibility and/or suprathreshold deficiencies. In cochlear implants, the signal transmitted is spectro-temporally degraded. Hence, it has not been clear if hearing-impaired individuals and hearing-device users can as successfully use the cognitive compensation mechanisms, due to the interactive effects of these degradations with aging and hearing device front-end processing. The speech intelligibility tests are not capable of characterizing the cognitive compensation mechanisms. In our research, reviewed here, we have employed new approaches (phonemic restoration, dual-task paradigm, eye tracking, verbal response times) to answer this research question. Our results have shown that there is a fine balance between the speech degradations and their top-down compensation. This can be broken in advanced degrees of hearing impairment or due to inadequate device settings. With degraded speech, sentential context can still be used. Yet, this may come at the cost of delayed processing, likely drawing on more cognitive resources then timely integration of semantic information by normal-hearing listeners. Aging does not always have to have a negative effect; long-term linguistic and lexical knowledge may be successfully employed to achieve compensation. These findings indicate that new measures of cognitive processes need to be developed and used in clinics and device development, to comprehensively capture speech comprehension abilities and to improve diagnostic and rehabilitation procedures and tools.
Başkent, D. (2010). “Phonemic restoration in sensorineural hearing loss does not depend on baseline speech perception scores,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 128, EL169-EL174.
Başkent, D., Eiler, C.L., and Edwards, B. (2010). “Phonemic restoration by hearing-impaired listeners with mild to moderate sensorineural hearing loss,” Hear. Res., 260, 54-62.
Başkent, D. (2012). “Effect of speech degradation on top-down repair: Phonemic restoration with simulations of cochlear implants and combined electric–acoustic stimulation,” J. Assoc. Res. Otolaryngol., 13, 683-692.
Benard, M.R. and Başkent, D. (2014). “Perceptual learning of temporally interrupted and spectrally degraded speech,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 136, 1344-1351.
Benard, M.R., Mensink, J.S., and Başkent, D. (2014). “Individual differences in top-down restoration of interrupted speech: Links to linguistic and cognitive abilities,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 135, EL88-EL94.
Bergman, M., Blumenfeld, V.G., Cascardo, D., Dash, B., Levitt, H., and Margulies, M.K. (1976). “Age-related decrement in hearing for speech: Sampling and longitudinal studies,” J. Gerontol., 31, 533-538.
Best, C.T., Morrongiello, B., and Robson, R. (1981). “Perceptual equivalence of acous-tic cues in speech and nonspeech perception,” Percept. Psychophys., 29, 191-211.
Bhargava, P., Gaudrain, E., and Başkent, D. (2014). “Top–down restoration of speech in cochlear-implant users,” Hear. Res., 309, 113-123.
Bhargava, P., Gaudrain, E., and Başkent, D. (2015). “The intelligibility of interrupted speech: Cochlear implant users and normal hearing listeners,” J. Assoc. Res. Otolaryngol. (in press).
Blamey, P., Artieres, F., Başkent, D., et al. (2013). “Factors affecting auditory performance of postlinguistically deaf adults using cochlear implants: An update with 2251 patients,” Audiol. Neurotol., 18, 36-47.
Chatterjee, M., Peredo, F., Nelson, D., and Başkent, D. (2010). “Recognition of interrupted sentences under conditions of spectral degradation,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 127, EL37-EL41.
Clarke, J., Başkent, D., and Gaudrain, E. (2015). “Pitch and spectral resolution: a systematic comparison of bottom-up cues for top-down repair of degraded speech,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. (under revision).
Dahan, D. and Gaskell, G.M. (2007). “The temporal dynamics of ambiguity res-olution: Evidence from spoken-word recognition,” J. Mem. Lang., 57, 483-501.
Friesen, L.M., Shannon, R.V., Başkent, D., and Wang, X. (2001). “Speech recognition in noise as a function of the number of spectral channels: comparison of acoustic hearing and cochlear implants,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 110, 1150-1163.
Gillette, M. and Wit, E.-J.C. (1998). “What is linguistic redundancy: Technical report,” (http://www. maths. unsw. edu. au/statistics/preprints/1998/s98-25).
Gordon-Salant, S. and Fitzgibbons, P. J. (1993). “Temporal factors and speech recogni-tion performance in young and elderly listeners,” J. Sp. Hear. Res., 36, 1276-1285.
Hecker, M.H., Stevens, K.N., and Williams, C.E. (1966). “Measurements of reaction time in intelligibility tests,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 39, 1188-1189.
Hornsby, B.W. (2013). “The effects of hearing aid use on listening effort and mental fatigue associated with sustained speech processing demands,” Ear Hearing, 34, 523-534.
Kahneman, D. (1973). Attention and Effort. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Kawahara, H. and Morise, M. (2011). “Technical foundations of TANDEM-STRAIGHT, a speech analysis, modification and synthesis framework,” SADHANA Acad. P. Eng. S., 36, 713-722.
Koga, Y. and Morant, G. (1923). “On the degree of association between reaction times in the case of different senses,” Biometrika, 15, 346-372.
Lazard, D.S., Innes-Brown, H., and Barone, P. (2014). “Adaptation of the communicative brain to post-lingual deafness. Evidence from functional imaging,” Hear. Res., 307, 136-143.
Lippman, R.P. (1996). “Accurate consonant perception without mid-frequency speech energy,” IEEE T. Speech Audi. P., 4, 66-69.
Mackersie, C.L. and Cones, H. (2011). “Subjective and psychophysiological indices of listening effort in a competing-talker task,” J. Am. Acad. Audiol., 22, 113-122.
Marslen-Wilson, W.D. and Welsh, A. (1978). “Processing interactions and lexical access during word recognition in continuous speech,” Cog. Psychol., 10, 29-63.
Mattys, S.L., Davis, M.H., Bradlow, A.R., and Scott, S.K. (2012). “Speech recognition in adverse conditions: A review,” Lang. Cog. Proc., 27, 953-978.
McGarrigle, R., Munro, K.J., Dawes, P., Stewart, A.J., Moore, D.R., Barry, J.G., and Amitay, S. (2014). “Listening effort and fatigue: What exactly are we measuring? A British Society of Audiology Cognition in Hearing Special Interest Group ‘white paper’,” Int. J. Audiol., 53, 433-440.
Miller, G.A. and Licklider, J.C.R. (1950). “The intelligibility of interrupted speech,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 22, 167-173.
Moore B.C.J. and Carlyon R.P. (2005). “Perception of pitch by people with cochlear hearing loss and by cochlear implant users,” in Plack C.J., Oxenham A.J., Fay R.R., Popper A.N. (eds) Pitch: Neural Coding and Perception. Springer, New-York, NY, pp. 234-277.
Nelson, P.B. and Jin, S.H. (2004). “Factors affecting speech understanding in gated interference: cochlear implant users and normal-hearing listeners,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 115, 2286-2294.
Pals, C., Sarampalis, A., and Başkent, D. (2013). “Listening effort with cochlear implant simulations,” J. Speech Lang. Hear. Res., 56, 1075-1084
Pals, C., Sarampalis, A., Van Rijn, H., and Başkent, D. (2015). “Validation of a simple response-time measure of listening effort,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. (in press).
Pichora-Fuller, K.M. (2008). “Use of supportive context by younger and older adult listeners: Balancing bottom-up and top-down information processing,” Int. J. Audiol., 47, 72-82.
Rabbitt, P.M. (1968). “Channel-capacity, intelligibility and immediate memory,” Q. J. Exp. Psychol., 20, 241-248.
Rudner, M., Ng, H.N., Rönnberg, N., Mishra, S., Rönnberg, J., Lunner, T., and Stenfelt, S. (2011). “Cognitive spare capacity as a measure of listening effort,” J. Hear. Sci., 1, 47-49.
Saija, J.D., Akyürek, E.G., Andringa, T.C., and Başkent, D. (2014). “Perceptual restoration of degraded speech is preserved with advancing age,” J. Assoc. Res. Otolaryngol., 15, 139-148.
Salthouse, T.A. (1996). “The processing-speed theory of adult age differences in cognition,” Psychol. Rev., 103, 403-428.
Salthouse, T.A. (2004). “What and when of cognitive aging,” Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci., 13, 140-144.
Sarampalis, A., Kalluri, S., Edwards, B., and Hafter, E. (2009). “Objective measures of listening effort: Effects of background noise and noise reduction,” J. Speech Lang. Hear. Res., 52, 1230-1240.
Stickney, G.S., Zeng, F.G., Litovsky, R., and Assmann, P. (2004). “Cochlear implant speech recognition with speech maskers,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 116, 1081-1091.
Wagemans, J., Elder, J.H., Kubovy, M., Palmer, S.E., Peterson, M.A., Singh, M., and von der Heydt, R. (2012). “A century of Gestalt psychology in visual perception: I. Perceptual grouping and figure–ground organization,” Psych. Bull., 138, 1218-1252.
Wagner, A., Pals, C., de Blecourt, C., Sarampalis, A., and Başkent, D. (2015). “Does signal degradation affect top-down processing of speech?” Proc. International Symposium on Hearing, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Warren, R.M. (1970). “Perceptual restoration of missing speech sounds,” Science, 167, 392-393.
Winn, M.B., Edwards, J.R., and Litovsky, R.Y. (2015). “The impact of auditory spectral resolution on listening effort revealed by pupil dilation,” Ear Hearing, 36, e153-e165.
Zekveld, A.A., Kramer, S.E., and Festen, J.M. (2010). “Pupil response as an indication of effortful listening: The influence of sentence intelligibility,” Ear Hearing, 31, 480-490.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
a. Authors retain copyright* and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
b. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
c. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
*From the 2017 issue onward. The Danavox Jubilee Foundation owns the copyright of all articles published in the 1969-2015 issues. However, authors are still allowed to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.