Neurophysiological, linguistic, and cognitive predictors of children's ability to perceive speech in noise

Elaine C Thompson, Jennifer Krizman, Travis White-Schwoch, Trent Nicol, Ryne Estabrook, Nina Kraus, Elaine C Thompson, Jennifer Krizman, Travis White-Schwoch, Trent Nicol, Ryne Estabrook, Nina Kraus

Abstract

Hearing in noisy environments is a complicated task that engages attention, memory, linguistic knowledge, and precise auditory-neurophysiological processing of sound. Accumulating evidence in school-aged children and adults suggests these mechanisms vary with the task's demands. For instance, co-located speech and noise demands a large cognitive load and recruits working memory, while spatially separating speech and noise diminishes this load and draws on alternative skills. Past research has focused on one or two mechanisms underlying speech-in-noise perception in isolation; few studies have considered multiple factors in tandem, or how they interact during critical developmental years. This project sought to test complementary hypotheses involving neurophysiological, cognitive, and linguistic processes supporting speech-in-noise perception in young children under different masking conditions (co-located, spatially separated). Structural equation modeling was used to identify latent constructs and examine their contributions as predictors. Results reveal cognitive and language skills operate as a single factor supporting speech-in-noise perception under different masking conditions. While neural coding of the F0 supports perception in both co-located and spatially separated conditions, neural timing predicts perception of spatially separated listening exclusively. Together, these results suggest co-located and spatially separated speech-in-noise perception draw on similar cognitive/linguistic skills, but distinct neural factors, in early childhood.

Keywords: Auditory development; Auditory processing; Cognition; Electrophysiology; FFR; Language; Speech-in-noise perception; Structural equation modeling.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Copyright © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
The theoretically proposed structural equation model (M1) is comprised of latent constructs (ovals) and manifest variables (rectangles). Latent constructs include speech-in-noise perception (shared and differential), cognition, language, and neural processing. Manifest variables, or measured indicators, are listed for each latent construct.
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Path diagrams for M2 and M3. These models reflect refined versions of the conceptual model (M1), where the multifactor latent variable is eliminated (M2), and the cognition and language latent constructs are combined (M3).

References

    1. Anderson S., Skoe E., Chandrasekaran B., Zecker S., Kraus N. Brainstem correlates of speech-in-noise perception in children. Hear. Res. 2010;270:151–157.
    1. Anderson S., Skoe E., Chandrasekaran B., Kraus N. Neural timing is linked to speech perception in noise. J. Neurosci. 2010;30:4922–4926.
    1. Anderson S., Parbery-Clark A., White-Schwoch T., Drehobl S., Kraus N. Effects of hearing loss on the subcortical representation of speech cues. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2013;133:3030–3038.
    1. Anderson S., White-Schwoch T., Parbery-Clark A., Kraus N. A dynamic auditory-cognitive system supports speech-in-noise perception in older adults. Hear. Res. 2013;300:18–32.
    1. Andreou L., Kashino M., Chait M. The role of temporal regularity in auditory segregation. Hear. Res. 2011;280:228–235.
    1. Baddeley A. Working memory and language: an overview. J. Commun. Disord. 2003;36:189–208.
    1. Bench J., Kowal A., Bamford J. The BKB (Bamford-Kowal-Bench) sentence lists for partially-hearing children. Br. J. Audiol. 1979;13:108–112.
    1. Boothroyd A. Developmental factors in speech recognition. Int. Audiol. 1970;9:30–38.
    1. Bradley J.S., Sato H. The intelligibility of speech in elementary school classrooms. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2008;123:2078–2086.
    1. Bradlow A.R., Kraus N., Hayes E. Speaking clearly for children with learning disabilities: sentence perception in noise. J. Speech Lang. Hear. Res. JSLHR. 2003;46:80–97.
    1. Brady S., Shankweiler D., Mann V. Speech perception and memory coding in relation to reading ability. J. Exp. Child Psychol. 1983;35:345–367.
    1. Bronkhorst A.W., Plomp R. The effect of head-induced interaural time and level differences on speech intelligibility in noise. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1988;83:1508–1516.
    1. Carlile S., Corkhill C. Selective spatial attention modulates bottom-up informational masking of speech. Sci. Rep. 2015;5
    1. Dirks D.D., Wilson R.H. The effect of spatially separated sound sources on speech intelligibility. J. Speech Hear. Res. 1969;12:5–38.
    1. Ebata M. Spacial unmasking and attention related to the cocktail party problem. Accoustic Sci. Technol. 2003;24:208–219.
    1. Eisenberg L.S., Shannon R.V., Martinez A.S., Wygonski J., Boothroyd A. Speech recognition with reduced spectral cues as a function of age. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2000;107:2704–2710.
    1. Eisenberg L.S., Martinez A.S., Holowecky S.R., Pogorelsky S. Recognition of lexically controlled words and sentences by children with normal hearing and children with cochlear implants. Ear Hear. 2002;23:450–462.
    1. Elliott L.L. Performance of children aged 9 to 17 years on a test of speech intelligibility in noise using sentence material with controlled word predictability. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1979;66:651–653.
    1. Fallon M., Trehub S.E., Schneider B.A. Children’s use of semantic cues in degraded listening environments. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2002;111:2242–2249.
    1. Francis A.L. Improved segregation of simultaneous talkers differentially affects perceptual and cognitive capacity demands for recognizing speech in competing speech. Atten. Percept. Psychophys. 2010;72:501–516.
    1. Francis A.L., Connell K., Anderson L. Does spatial release from masking interact with working memory capacity in speech perception? J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2011;129:2662.
    1. Freyman R.L., Helfer K.S., McCall D.D., Clifton R.K. The role of perceived spatial separation in the unmasking of speech. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1999;106:3578–3588.
    1. Garadat S.N., Litovsky R.Y. Speech intelligibility in free field: spatial unmasking in preschool children. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2007;121:1047–1055.
    1. Grothe B. Sensory systems: new roles for synaptic inhibition in sound localization. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 2003;4:540–550.
    1. Hartley D.E., Wright B.A., Hogan S.C., Moore D.R. Age-related improvements in auditory backward and simultaneous masking in 6- to 10-year-old children. J. Speech Lang. Hear. Res. JSLHR. 2000;43:1402–1415.
    1. Hawley M.L., Litovsky R.Y., Colburn H.S. Speech intelligibility and localization in a multi-source environment. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1999;105:3436–3448.
    1. Hnath-Chisolm T.E., Laipply E., Boothroyd A. Age-related changes on a children’s test of sensory-level speech perception capacity. J. Speech Lang. Hear. Res. JSLHR. 1998;41:94–106.
    1. Hooper D., Coughlan J., Mullen M.R. Structural equation modelling: guidelines for determining model fit. Electron. J. Bus. Res. Methods. 2008;6:53–60.
    1. Hornickel J., Skoe E., Nicol T., Zecker S., Kraus N. Subcortical differentiation of stop consonants relates to reading and speech-in-noise perception. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 2009;106:13022–13027.
    1. Hu L., Bentler P.M. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct. Equ. Model. Multidiscip. J. 1999;6:1–55.
    1. Jones P.R., Moore D.R., Amitay S. Development of auditory selective attention: why children struggle to hear in noisy environments. Dev. Psychol. 2015;51:353–369.
    1. Kalikow D.N., Stevens K.N., Elliott L.L. Development of a test of speech intelligibility in noise using sentence materials with controlled word predictability. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1977;61:1337–1351.
    1. Kidd G., Mason C.R., Rohtla T.L., Deliwala P.S. Release from masking due to spatial separation of sources in the identification of nonspeech auditory patterns. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1998;104:422–431.
    1. Lewis D., Hoover B., Choi S., Stelmachowicz P. Relationship between Speech Perception in Noise and Phonological Awareness Skills for Children With Normal Hearing. Ear Hear. 2010;31:761–768.
    1. Litovsky R.Y. Speech intelligibility and spatial release from masking in young children. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2005;117:3091–3099.
    1. Loehlin J.C. L. Erlbaum Associates; Mahwah, N.J: 2004. Latent Variable Models: An Introduction to Factor, Path, and Structural Equation Analysis.
    1. Moore D.R., Ferguson M.A., Edmondson-Jones A.M., Ratib S., Riley A. Nature of auditory processing disorder in children. Pediatrics. 2010;126:e382–390.
    1. Muthén L.K., Muthén B.O. eighth edition. 2017. Mplus User’s Guide.
    1. Nittrouer S., Boothroyd A. Context effects in phoneme and word recognition by young children and older adults. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1990;87:2705–2715.
    1. Papso C.F., Blood I.M. Word recognition skills of children and adults in background noise. Ear Hear. 1989;10:235–236.
    1. Parbery-Clark A., Skoe E., Kraus N. Musical experience limits the degradative effects of background noise on the neural processing of sound. J. Neurosci. Off. J. Soc. Neurosci. 2009;29:14100–14107.
    1. Pichora-Fuller M.K., Schneider B.A., Daneman M. How young and old adults listen to and remember speech in noise. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1995;97:593–608.
    1. Ren C., Liu S., Liu H., Kong Y., Liu X., Li S. Lexical and age effects on word recognition in noise in normal-hearing children. Int. J. Pediatr. Otorhinolaryngol. 2015;79:2023–2027.
    1. Roid G.H., Miller L.J. Stoelting Co; 1997. Leiter International Performance Scale - Revised.
    1. Rönnberg J., Rudner M., Lunner T., Zekveld A.A. When cognition kicks in: working memory and speech understanding in noise. Noise Health. 2010;12:263–269.
    1. Shamma S.A., Elhilali M., Micheyl C. Temporal coherence and attention in auditory scene analysis. Trends Neurosci. 2011;34:114–123.
    1. Shield B.M., Dockrell J.E. The effects of environmental and classroom noise on the academic attainments of primary school children. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2008;123:133–144.
    1. Shinn-Cunningham B.G. Object-based auditory and visual attention. Trends Cogn. Sci. 2008;12(5):182–186.
    1. Skoe E., Kraus N. Auditory brain stem response to complex sounds: a tutorial. Ear Hear. 2010;31:302–324.
    1. Soli S.D., Wong L.L.N. Assessment of speech intelligibility in noise with the Hearing in Noise Test. Int. J. Audiol. 2008;47:356–361.
    1. Song J.H., Skoe E., Banai K., Kraus N. Perception of speech in noise: neural correlates. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 2011;23:2268–2279.
    1. Spitzer E., White-Schwoch T., Woodruff Carr K., Skoe E., Kraus N. Continued maturation of the click-evoked auditory brainstem response in preschoolers. J. Am. Acad. Audiol. 2015;26:30–35.
    1. Steiger J.H. Understanding the limitations of global fit assessment in structural equation modeling. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2007;42:893–898.
    1. Strait D.L., Kraus N. Can you hear me now? Musical training shapes functional brain networks for selective auditory attention and hearing speech in noise. Front. Psychol. 2011;2
    1. Strait D.L., O’Connell S., Parbery-Clark A., Kraus N. Musicians’ enhanced neural differentiation of speech sounds arises early in life: developmental evidence from ages 3 to 30. Cereb. Cortex. 2014;24:2512–2521.
    1. Studdert-Kennedy M., Shankweiler D. Hemispheric specialization for speech perception. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1970;48:579–594.
    1. Summers V., Leek M.R. FO processing and the separation of competing speech signals by listeners with normal hearing and with hearing loss. J. Speech Lang. Hear. Res. JSLHR. 1998;41:1294–1306.
    1. Tallal P., Stark R.E. Speech acoustic-cue discrimination abilities of normally developing and language-impaired children. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1981;69:568–574.
    1. Thompson E.C., Woodruff Carr K., White-Schwoch T., Otto-Meyer S., Kraus N. Individual differences in speech-in-noise perception parallel neural speech processing and attention in preschoolers. Hear. Res. 2017;344:148–157.
    1. Wightman F., Allen P., Dolan T., Kistler D., Jamieson D. Temporal resolution in children. Child Dev. 1989;60:611–624.
    1. Wiig E.H., Semel E., Secord W. Pearson; 2013. Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals.
    1. Wingfield A., Tun P.A., McCoy S.L. Hearing Loss in Older Adulthood. What It Is and How It Interacts With Cognitive Performance. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 2005;14:144–148.
    1. Woodcock R., Johnson M. DLM Teaching Resources; Allen, TX: 1989. Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery-Revised. Tests of Cognitive Ability.
    1. Ziegler J.C., Pech-Georgel C., George F., Alario F.-X., Lorenzi C. Deficits in speech perception predict language learning impairment. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 2005;102:14110–14115.
    1. Ziegler J.C., Pech-Georgel C., George F., Lorenzi C. Speech-perception-in-noise deficits in dyslexia. Dev. Sci. 2009;12:732–745.

Source: PubMed

Sponsoren und Mitarbeiter

Krankheiten

Drogeninterventionen

3
Abonnieren