Cognitive Processing Speed, Working Memory, and the Intelligibility of Hearing Aid-Processed Speech in Persons with Hearing Impairment

Previous studies have demonstrated that successful listening with advanced signal processing in digital hearing aids is associated with individual cognitive capacity, particularly working memory capacity (WMC). This study aimed to examine the relationship between cognitive abilities (cognitive processing speed and WMC) and individual listeners’ responses to digital signal processing settings in adverse listening conditions. A total of 194 native Swedish speakers (83 women and 111 men), aged 33–80 years (mean = 60.75 years, SD = 8.89), with bilateral, symmetrical mild to moderate sensorineural hearing loss who had completed a lexical decision speed test (measuring cognitive processing speed) and semantic word-pair span test (SWPST, capturing WMC) participated in this study. The Hagerman test (capturing speech recognition in noise) was conducted using an experimental hearing aid with three digital signal processing settings: (1) linear amplification without noise reduction (NoP), (2) linear amplification with noise reduction (NR), and (3) non-linear amplification without NR (“fast-acting compression”). The results showed that cognitive processing speed was a better predictor of speech intelligibility in noise, regardless of the types of signal processing algorithms used. That is, there was a stronger association between cognitive processing speed and NR outcomes and fast-acting compression outcomes (in steady state noise). We observed a weaker relationship between working memory and NR, but WMC did not relate to fast-acting compression. WMC was a relatively weaker predictor of speech intelligibility in noise. These findings might have been different if the participants had been provided with training and or allowed to acclimatize to binary masking noise reduction or fast-acting compression

Academic Stress : A Case of the Undergraduate students

This study examined the perceptions of major of sources of academic stress among male and female undergraduates. Data were collected via a survey in which participated 100 students, with mean of age (M=23, 21) and standard deviation (SD=3, 27), varied in year in school, age and gender; and the statistical package for social sciences (SPSS) was used for data analysis. The survey consisted of 33 potential stressful situations, which were divided into 4 categories: Relations with other people sources of stress, personal sources of stress, academic sources of stress, and the environmental sources of stress. The results show the academic sources of stress appeared to be the most stressful for all the students due to the pressure originated from the course overloads, and the academic evaluation procedures. A variety of personal, familial, and social factors were also identified as least stressful stressors. The first year undergraduates, especially female students reported higher degree of stress than male students did. The findings from this study may be useful for further research on how these potential sources of stress influence the performance and the health of the students

Cognitive Processing Speed, Working Memory, and the Intelligibility of Hearing Aid-Processed Speech in Persons with Hearing Impairment

Previous studies have demonstrated that successful listening with advanced signal processing in digital hearing aids is associated with individual cognitive capacity, particularly working memory capacity (WMC). This study aimed to examine the relationship between cognitive abilities (cognitive processing speed and WMC) and individual listeners responses to digital signal processing settings in adverse listening conditions. A total of 194 native Swedish speakers (83 women and 111 men), aged 33-80 years (mean = 60.75 years, SD = 8.89), with bilateral, symmetrical mild to moderate sensorineural hearing loss who had completed a lexical decision speed test (measuring cognitive processing speed) and semantic word-pair span test (SWPST, capturing WMC) participated in this study. The Hagerman test (capturing speech recognition in noise) was conducted using an experimental hearing aid with three digital signal processing settings: (1) linear amplification without noise reduction (NoP), (2) linear amplification with noise reduction (NR), and (3) non-linear amplification without NR ("fast-acting compression"). The results showed that cognitive processing speed was a better predictor of speech intelligibility in noise, regardless of the types of signal processing algorithms used. That is, there was a stronger association between cognitive processing speed and NR outcomes and fast-acting compression outcomes (in steady state noise). We observed a weaker relationship between working memory and NR, but WMC did not relate to fast-acting compression. WMC was a relatively weaker predictor of speech intelligibility in noise. These findings might have been different if the participants had been provided with training and or allowed to acclimatize to binary masking noise reduction or fast-acting compression.Funding Agencies|Linnaeus Centre Hearing and Deafness from Swedish Research Council [349-2007-8654]</p

Influences of listener gender and working memory capacity on speech recognition in noise for hearing aid users

This study aimed to: (1) examine the influence of working memory capacity on the ability of experienced hearing aid users to recognize speech in noise using new noise reduction settings, and (2) investigate whether male and female hearing aid users differ in their hearing sensitivity and ability to recognize aided speech in noisy environments. 195 experienced hearing aid users (113 males and 82 females, age range: 33?80 years) from the n200 project were investigated. The Hagerman test (capturing speech recognition in noise) was administered using an experimental hearing aid with two digital signal processing settings: (1) linear amplification without noise reduction (NoP), and (2) linear amplification with noise reduction (NR). Gender differences were analysed using a series of independent samples from t-tests on Hagerman sentence scores, and the pure-tone average thresholds across the frequencies 500, 1000, 2000, and 4000?Hz (PTA4) for the left ear and right ear were measured. Working memory capacity (WMC) was measured using a reading span test. A WMC grouping (high and low) was included as a between-group subject factor in the within-group factors ANOVA, NR settings (Nop, NR), noise type (steady state noise, four -talker babble), and level of performance (50%, 80%). Male listeners had better pure-tone thresholds than female listeners at frequencies 500 and 1000?Hz, whereas female listeners had better pure-tone thresholds at 4000?Hz. Female listeners showed significantly better speech recognition ability than male listeners on the Hagerman test with NR , but not with NoP . This gender difference was more pronounced at the 80% performance level than at the 50% level. WMC had a significant effect on speech recognition ability, and there was a two-way interaction between WMC grouping and level of performance. The examination of simple main effects revealed superior performance of listeners with higher WMC at 80% using new NR settings. WMC, rather than background noise, was the main factor influencing performance at 80%, while at 50%, background noise was the main factor. WMC was associated with speech recognition performance even after accounting for hearing sensitivity (PTA4). This is the first study to demonstrate that experienced male and female hearing aid users differ significantly in their hearing ability and sensitivity and ability to recognize aided speech in noise. Thus, the average female listener has a greater speech recognition ability than the average male listener when linear amplification with NR is applied, but not when NoP is activated. An average female listener hears a given sound with greater sensitivity compared with an average male listener at higher frequencies. WMC is an important factor in speech recognition in more challenging listening conditions (i.e., lower signal?noise ratio) for experienced hearing aid users using new NR settings. More investigation is needed for a better understanding of how gender affects the ability of listeners less experienced with hearing aids (such as younger and elderly hearing-impaired listeners) to recognize speech amplified with different signal processing, as gender differences may vary based on numerous factors, including the speaker?s gender and age

Hearing impairment, cognition and speech understanding: exploratory factor analyses of a comprehensive test battery for a group of hearing aid users, the n200 study

Objective: The aims of the current n200 study were to assess the structural relations between three classes of test variables (i.e. HEARING, COGNITION and aided speech-in-noise OUTCOMES) and to describe the theoretical implications of these relations for the Ease of Language Understanding (ELU) model. Study sample: Participants were 200 hard-of-hearing hearing-aid users, with a mean age of 60.8 years. Forty-three percent were females and the mean hearing threshold in the better ear was 37.4dB HL. Design: LEVEL1 factor analyses extracted one factor per test and/or cognitive function based on a priori conceptualizations. The more abstract LEVEL 2 factor analyses were performed separately for the three classes of test variables. Results: The HEARING test variables resulted in two LEVEL 2 factors, which we labelled SENSITIVITY and TEMPORAL FINE STRUCTURE; the COGNITIVE variables in one COGNITION factor only, and OUTCOMES in two factors, NO CONTEXT and CONTEXT. COGNITION predicted the NO CONTEXT factor to a stronger extent than the CONTEXT outcome factor. TEMPORAL FINE STRUCTURE and SENSITIVITY were associated with COGNITION and all three contributed significantly and independently to especially the NO CONTEXT outcome scores (R-2 = 0.40). Conclusions: All LEVEL 2 factors are important theoretically as well as for clinical assessment.Funding Agencies|Linnaeus Centre HEAD excellence center grant from the Swedish Research Council [349-2007-8654]; FORTE [2012-1693]</p