↓ Skip to main content

How Linguistic Closure and Verbal Working Memory Relate to Speech Recognition in Noise—A Review

Overview of attention for article published in Trends in Hearing, August 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
114 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
168 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
How Linguistic Closure and Verbal Working Memory Relate to Speech Recognition in Noise—A Review
Published in
Trends in Hearing, August 2013
DOI 10.1177/1084713813495459
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jana Besser, Thomas Koelewijn, Adriana A. Zekveld, Sophia E. Kramer, Joost M. Festen

Abstract

The ability to recognize masked speech, commonly measured with a speech reception threshold (SRT) test, is associated with cognitive processing abilities. Two cognitive factors frequently assessed in speech recognition research are the capacity of working memory (WM), measured by means of a reading span (Rspan) or listening span (Lspan) test, and the ability to read masked text (linguistic closure), measured by the text reception threshold (TRT). The current article provides a review of recent hearing research that examined the relationship of TRT and WM span to SRTs in various maskers. Furthermore, modality differences in WM capacity assessed with the Rspan compared to the Lspan test were examined and related to speech recognition abilities in an experimental study with young adults with normal hearing (NH). Span scores were strongly associated with each other, but were higher in the auditory modality. The results of the reviewed studies suggest that TRT and WM span are related to each other, but differ in their relationships with SRT performance. In NH adults of middle age or older, both TRT and Rspan were associated with SRTs in speech maskers, whereas TRT better predicted speech recognition in fluctuating nonspeech maskers. The associations with SRTs in steady-state noise were inconclusive for both measures. WM span was positively related to benefit from contextual information in speech recognition, but better TRTs related to less interference from unrelated cues. Data for individuals with impaired hearing are limited, but larger WM span seems to give a general advantage in various listening situations.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 168 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Colombia 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 163 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 43 26%
Researcher 26 15%
Student > Master 21 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 6%
Student > Bachelor 8 5%
Other 26 15%
Unknown 34 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 34 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 23 14%
Linguistics 15 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 7%
Neuroscience 11 7%
Other 31 18%
Unknown 43 26%