The Effect of Hearing Loss and Working Memory Capacity on Context Use and Reliance on Context in Older Adults.

OBJECTIVES: Older adults often complain of difficulty in communicating in noisy environments. Contextual information is considered an important cue for identifying everyday speech. To date, it has not been clear exactly how context use (CU) and reliance on context in older adults are affected by hearing status and cognitive function. The present study examined the effects of semantic context on the performance of speech recognition, recall, perceived listening effort (LE), and noise tolerance, and further explored the impacts of hearing loss and working memory capacity on CU and reliance on context among older adults. DESIGN: Fifty older adults with normal hearing and 56 older adults with mild-to-moderate hearing loss between the ages of 60 and 95 years participated in this study. A median split of the backward digit span further classified the participants into high working memory (HWM) and low working memory (LWM) capacity groups. Each participant performed high- and low-context Repeat and Recall tests, including a sentence repeat and delayed recall task, subjective assessments of LE, and tolerable time under seven signal to noise ratios (SNRs). CU was calculated as the difference between high- and low-context sentences for each outcome measure. The proportion of context use (PCU) in high-context performance was taken as the reliance on context to explain the degree to which participants relied on context when they repeated and recalled high-context sentences. RESULTS: Semantic context helps improve the performance of speech recognition and delayed recall, reduces perceived LE, and prolongs noise tolerance in older adults with and without hearing loss. In addition, the adverse effects of hearing loss on the performance of repeat tasks were more pronounced in low context than in high context, whereas the effects on recall tasks and noise tolerance time were more significant in high context than in low context. Compared with other tasks, the CU and PCU in repeat tasks were more affected by listening status and working memory capacity. In the repeat phase, hearing loss increased older adults' reliance on the context of a relatively challenging listening environment, as shown by the fact that when the SNR was 0 and -5 dB, the PCU (repeat) of the hearing loss group was significantly greater than that of the normal-hearing group, whereas there was no significant difference between the two hearing groups under the remaining SNRs. In addition, older adults with LWM had significantly greater CU and PCU in repeat tasks than those with HWM, especially at SNRs with moderate task demands. CONCLUSIONS: Taken together, semantic context not only improved speech perception intelligibility but also released cognitive resources for memory encoding in older adults. Mild-to-moderate hearing loss and LWM capacity in older adults significantly increased the use and reliance on semantic context, which was also modulated by the level of SNR.

The effect of aging on context use and reliance on context in speech: A behavioral experiment with Repeat-Recall Test.

Purpose: To elucidate how aging would affect the extent of semantic context use and the reliance on semantic context measured with the Repeat-Recall Test (RRT). Methods: A younger adult group (YA) aged between 18 and 25 and an older adult group (OA) aged between 50 and 65 were recruited. Participants from both the groups performed RRT: sentence repeat and delayed recall tasks, and subjective listening effort and noise tolerable time, under two noise types and seven signal-to-noise ratios (SNR). Performance-Intensity curves were fitted. The performance in SRT50 and SRT75 was predicted. Results: For the repeat task, the OA group used more semantic context and relied more on semantic context than the YA group. For the recall task, OA used less semantic context but relied more on context than the YA group. Age did not affect the subjective listening effort but significantly affected noise tolerable time. Participants in both age groups could use more context in SRT75 than SRT50 on four tasks of RRT. Under the same SRT, however, the YA group could use more context in repeat and recall tasks than the OA group. Conclusion: Age affected the use and reliance of semantic context. Even though the OA group used more context in speech recognition, they failed in speech information maintenance (recall) even with the help of semantic context. The OA group relied more on context while performing repeat and recall tasks. The amount of context used was also influenced by SRT.

Using Auditory Characteristics to Select Hearing Aid Compression Speeds for Presbycusic Patients.

Objectives: This study aimed to select the optimal hearing aid compression speeds (fast-acting and slow-acting) for presbycusic patients by using auditory characteristics including temporal modulation and speech-in-noise performance. Methods: In total, 24 patients with unilateral or bilateral moderate sensorineural hearing loss who scored higher than 21 on the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) test participated in this study. The electrocochleogram (ECochG) results, including summating potentials (SP) and action potentials (AP), were recorded. Subjects' temporal modulation thresholds and speech recognition at 4 individualized signal-to-noise ratios were measured under three conditions, namely, unaided, aided with fast-acting compression (FAC), and aided with slow-acting compression (SAC). Results: The results of this study showed that modulation discrimination thresholds in the unaided (-8.14 dB) and aided SAC (-8.19 dB) conditions were better than the modulation thresholds in the FAC (-4.67 dB) conditions. The speech recognition threshold (SRT75%) for FAC (5.21 dB) did not differ significantly from SAC (3.39 dB) (p = 0.12). A decision tree analysis showed that the inclusion of the AP, unaided modulation thresholds, and unaided SRT75% may correctly identify the optimal compression speeds (FAC vs. SAC) for individual presbycusic patients with up to 90% accuracy. Conclusion: Both modes of compression speeds improved a presbycusic patient's speech recognition ability in noise. The SAC hearing aids may better preserve the modulation thresholds than the FAC hearing aids. The measurement of AP, along with the unaided modulation thresholds and unaided SRT75%, may help guide the selection of optimal compression speeds for individual presbycusic patients.