Auditory Verbal Working Memory as a Predictor of Speech Perception in Modulated Maskers in Listeners With Normal Hearing

Rebecca E. Millman*, Sven L. Mattys

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

253 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Purpose: Background noise can interfere with our ability to understand speech. Working memory capacity (WMC) has been shown to contribute to the perception of speech in modulated noise maskers. WMC has been assessed with a variety of auditory and visual tests, often pertaining to different components of working memory. This study assessed the relationship between speech perception in modulated maskers and components of auditory verbal working memory (AVWM) over a range of signal-to-noise ratios. Method: Speech perception in noise and AVWM were measured in 30 listeners (age range 31-67 years) with normal hearing. AVWM was estimated using forward digit recall, backward digit recall, and nonword repetition. Results: After controlling for the effects of age and average pure-tone hearing threshold, speech perception in modulated maskers was related to individual differences in the phonological component of working memory (as assessed by nonword repetition) but only in the least favorable signal-to-noise ratio. The executive component of working memory (as assessed by backward digit) was not predictive of speech perception in any conditions. Conclusions: AVWM is predictive of the ability to benefit from temporal dips in modulated maskers: Listeners with greater phonological WMC are better able to correctly identify sentences in modulated noise backgrounds.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1236-1245
Number of pages10
JournalJournal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research
Volume60
Issue number5
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 31 May 2017

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Auditory Verbal Working Memory as a Predictor of Speech Perception in Modulated Maskers in Listeners With Normal Hearing'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this