Download PDF
Semin Hear 2013; 34(04): 298-307
DOI: 10.1055/s-0033-1356642
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Cognitive Spare Capacity as a Window on Hearing Aid Benefit

Mary Rudner
1   Linnaeus Centre HEAD, Swedish Institute for Disability Research, Department of Behavioural Sciences and Learning
,
Thomas Lunner
1   Linnaeus Centre HEAD, Swedish Institute for Disability Research, Department of Behavioural Sciences and Learning
2   Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Linköping University, Sweden
3   Eriksholm Research Centre, Oticon A/S, Denmark
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
15 October 2013 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

It is well established that successful listening with advanced signal processing in digital hearing aids is associated with individual working memory capacity, which is the cognitive ability to keep information in mind and process it. Different types of cognitive processing may be required in different situations. For example, when listening in noise it may be necessary to inhibit irrelevant information and update misheard information. There is evidence that simply hearing a spoken utterance consumes cognitive resources and may do so to different degrees for different individuals. To determine just how useful different kinds of signal processing are, it is important to determine to what extent they help individual hearing aid users cope with the kind of cognitive demands that may arise in everyday listening situations. This article explores the role of cognition in hearing aid use and describes recent work aimed at determining individual cognitive spare capacity or the ability to process speech heard in noise in ways that may be relevant for communication.

Keywords

Cognition - working memory - cognitive spare capacity - hearing aids - signal processing
 

  • References

  • 1 Pichora-Fuller MK. How cognition might influence hearing aid design, fitting, and outcomes. The Hearing Journal 2009; 62 (11) 32-35
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 2 Lunner T. Cognitive function in relation to hearing aid use. Int J Audiol 2003; 42 (Suppl. 01) S49-S58
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 Gatehouse S, Naylor G, Elberling C. Benefits from hearing aids in relation to the interaction between the user and the environment. Int J Audiol 2003; 42 (Suppl. 01) S77-S85
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 Edwards B. The future of hearing aid technology. Trends Amplif 2007; 11 (1) 31-45
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 Lunner T, Rudner M, Rönnberg J. Cognition and hearing aids. Scand J Psychol 2009; 50 (5) 395-403
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 Cox RM, Xu J. Short and long compression release times: speech understanding, real-world preferences, and association with cognitive ability. J Am Acad Audiol 2010; 21 (2) 121-138
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 Foo C, Rudner M, Rönnberg J, Lunner T. Recognition of speech in noise with new hearing instrument compression release settings requires explicit cognitive storage and processing capacity. J Am Acad Audiol 2007; 18 (7) 618-631
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 8 Gatehouse S, Naylor G, Elberling C. Linear and nonlinear hearing aid fittings—2. Patterns of candidature. Int J Audiol 2006; 45 (3) 153-171
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 9 Lunner T, Sundewall-Thorén E. Interactions between cognition, compression, and listening conditions: effects on speech-in-noise performance in a two-channel hearing aid. J Am Acad Audiol 2007; 18 (7) 604-617
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 Rudner M, Foo C, Rönnberg J, Lunner T. Cognition and aided speech recognition in noise: specific role for cognitive factors following nine-week experience with adjusted compression settings in hearing aids. Scand J Psychol 2009; 50 (5) 405-418
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 Rudner M, Lunner T, Behrens T, Thorén ES, Rönnberg J. Working memory capacity may influence perceived effort during aided speech recognition in noise. J Am Acad Audiol 2012; 23 (8) 577-589
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 12 Rudner M, Rönnberg J, Lunner T. Working memory supports listening in noise for persons with hearing impairment. J Am Acad Audiol 2011; 22 (3) 156-167
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 13 Rönnberg J, Rudner M, Foo C, Lunner T. Cognition counts: a working memory system for ease of language understanding (ELU). Int J Audiol 2008; 47 (Suppl. 02) S99-S105
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 Pichora-Fuller MK. Audition and cognition: what audiologists need to know about listening. In: Palmer C, Seewald R, , eds. Hearing Care for Adults. Stäfa, Switzerland: Phonak; 2007: 71-85
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 15 Rudner M, Ng EHN, Rönnberg N , et al. Cognitive spare capacity as a measure of listening effort. Journal of Hearing Science 2011; 1 (2) 47-49
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 16 Tulving E. Episodic Memory: From Mind to Brain. Annual Review of Psychology 2002; 53: 1-25
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 17 Baddeley A. The episodic buffer: a new component of working memory?. Trends Cogn Sci 2000; 4 (11) 417-423
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 18 Daneman M, Carpenter PA. Individual differences in working memory and reading. J Verbal Learn Verbal Behav 1980; 19: 450-466
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 19 Mattys SL, Davis MH, Bradlow AR, Scott SK. Speech recognition in adverse conditions: a review. Lang Cogn Process 2012; 27 (7–8) 953-978
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 20 Sörqvist P. The role of working memory capacity in auditory distraction: a review. Noise Health 2010; 12 (49) 217-224
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 21 Engel de Abreu PMJ, Conway ARA, Gathercole SE. Working memory and fluid intelligence in young children. Intelligence 2010; 38 (6) 552-561
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 22 Nyberg L, Lövdén M, Riklund K, Lindenberger U, Bäckman L. Memory aging and brain maintenance. Trends Cogn Sci 2012; 16 (5) 292-305
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 23 Gathercole SE, Pickering SJ, Knight C, Stegmann Z. Working memory skills and educational attainment: evidence from national curriculum assessments at 7 and 14 years of age. Appl Cogn Psychol 2004; 18 (1) 1-16
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 24 Baddeley A, Gathercole S, Papagno C. The phonological loop as a language learning device. Psychol Rev 1998; 105 (1) 158-173
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 25 Akeroyd MA. 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 2008; 47 (Suppl. 02) S53-S71
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 26 Besser J, Koelewijn T, Zekveld A, Kramer S, Festen J. How Linguistic Closure and Verbal Working Memory Relate to Speech Recognition in Noise–A Review. Trends Amplif; published online 13 August 2013. doi: 10.1177/1084713813495459
    PubMed
  • 27 Cowan N. The focus of attention as observed in visual working memory tasks: making sense of competing claims. Neuropsychologia 2011; 49 (6) 1401-1406
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 28 Baddeley AD, Hitch G , eds. Working Memory. Psychology of Learning and Motivation—Advances in Research and Theory; No. 8. New York, NY: Academic Press; 1974
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 29 Rönnberg J, Rudner M, Lunner T, Zekveld AA. When cognition kicks in: working memory and speech understanding in noise. Noise Health 2010; 12 (49) 263-269
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 30 Rönnberg J. Cognition in the hearing impaired and deaf as a bridge between signal and dialogue: a framework and a model. Int J Audiol 2003; 42 (Suppl. 01) S68-S76
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 31 Arlinger S, Lunner T, Lyxell B, Pichora-Fuller MK. The emergence of cognitive hearing science. Scand J Psychol 2009; 50 (5) 371-384
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 32 Rönnberg J, Lunner T, Zekveld A , et al. The Ease of Language Understanding (ELU) model: Theoretical, empirical, and clinical advances. Frontiers in Systems Neurosciences 2013; 7: 31 . doi: 10.3389/fnsys.2013.00031. Available at: http://www.frontiersin.org/systems_neuroscience/10.3389/fnsy.2013.00031/abstract . Accessed on September 23, 2013
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 33 Souza PE. Effects of compression on speech acoustics, intelligibility, and sound quality. Trends Amplif 2002; 6 (4) 131-165
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 34 Jenstad LM, Souza PE. Temporal envelope changes of compression and speech rate: combined effects on recognition for older adults. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2007; 50 (5) 1123-1138
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 35 Moore BCJ. The choice of compression speed in hearing aids: theoretical and practical considerations and the role of individual differences. Trends Amplif 2008; 12 (2) 103-112
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 36 Classon E, Rudner M, Rönnberg J. Working memory compensates for hearing related phonological processing deficit. J Commun Disord 2013; 46 (1) 17-29
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 37 Knutson JF, Schartz HA, Gantz BJ, Tyler RS, Hinrichs JV, Woodworth G. Psychological change following 18 months of cochlear implant use. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1991; 100 (11) 877-882
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 38 Hagerman B, Kinnefors C. Efficient adaptive methods for measuring speech reception threshold in quiet and in noise. Scand Audiol 1995; 24 (1) 71-77
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 39 Hagerman B. Sentences for testing speech intelligibility in noise. Scand Audiol 1982; 11 (2) 79-87
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 40 Hällgren M, Larsby B, Arlinger S. A Swedish version of the hearing in noise test (HINT) for measurement of speech recognition. Int J Audiol 2006; 45 (4) 227-237
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 41 Baddeley A, Logie R, Nimmo-Smith I, Brereton N. Components of fluent reading. J Mem Lang 1985; 24 (1) 119-131
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 42 Rönnberg J, Arlinger S, Lyxell B, Kinnefors C. Visual evoked potentials: relation to adult speechreading and cognitive function. J Speech Hear Res 1989; 32 (4) 725-735
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 43 Tremblay K, Shahin A, Picton T, Ross B. Auditory training alters the physiological detection of stimulus-specific cues in humans. Clin Neurophysiol 2009; 120 (1) 128-135
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 44 Ross B, Tremblay K. Stimulus experience modifies auditory neuromagnetic responses in young and older listeners. Hear Res 2009; 248 (1-2) 48-59 . doi: 10.1016/j.heares.2008.11.012
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 45 Rudner M, Foo C, Sundewall-Thorén E, Lunner T, Rönnberg J. Phonological mismatch and explicit cognitive processing in a sample of 102 hearing-aid users. Int J Audiol 2008; 47 (Suppl. 02) S91-S98
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 46 Zekveld AA, Rudner M, Johnsrude IS, Heslenfeld DJ, Rönnberg J. Behavioral and fMRI evidence that cognitive ability modulates the effect of semantic context on speech intelligibility. Brain Lang 2012; 122 (2) 103-113
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 47 Ng EH, Rudner M, Lunner T, Pedersen MS, Rönnberg J. Effects of noise and working memory capacity on memory processing of speech for hearing-aid users. Int J Audiol 2013; 52 (7) 433-441
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 48 Mishra S, Lunner T, Stenfelt S, Rönnberg J, Rudner M. Visual information can hinder working memory processing of speech. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2013; 56 (4) 1120-1132
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 49 Zekveld AA, Rudner M, Johnsrude IS, Festen JM, van Beek JHM, Rönnberg J. The influence of semantically related and unrelated text cues on the intelligibility of sentences in noise. Ear Hear 2011; 32 (6) e16-e25
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 50 Zekveld A, Rudner M, Johnsrude I, Rönnberg J. The effects of working memory capacity and semantic cues on the intelligibility of speech in noise. J Acoust Soc Am 2013; 134 (3) 2225-2234
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 51 Sarampalis A, Kalluri S, Edwards B, Hafter E. Objective measures of listening effort: effects of background noise and noise reduction. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2009; 52 (5) 1230-1240
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 52 Wang D, Kjems U, Pedersen MS, Boldt JB, Lunner T. Speech intelligibility in background noise with ideal binary time-frequency masking. J Acoust Soc Am 2009; 125 (4) 2336-2347
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 53 Ng E, Rudner M, Lunne T, Rönnberg J. Noise reduction improves memory for target speech in a competing speech. Cognitive Hearing Science for Communication, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden, 16–19 June 2013
    PubMed
  • 54 Mishra S, Rudner M, Lunner T, Stenfelt S, Rönnberg J. Audiovisual presentation supports cognitive processing of information heard in modulated noise. Cognitive Hearing Science for Communication, 16–19 June 2013, Linköping, Sweden
    PubMed
  • 55 Rudner M, Mishra S, Stenfelt S, Lunner T, Rönnberg J. Age-related individual differences in working memory capacity and executive ability influence cognitive spare capacity. Aging and Speech Communication, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana, 6–9 October 2013
    PubMed