Suzanne Purdy Head of School of Psychology Faculty of Science 23 Symonds Street University of Auckland scpurdyaucklandacnz Abin KuruvillaMathew Oscar Cañete Joan Leung ID: 1038605
Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "Listening effort and speech perception" is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
1. Listening effort and speech perception Suzanne PurdyHead of School of Psychology Faculty of Science 23 Symonds StreetUniversity of Aucklandsc.purdy@auckland.ac.nz
2. Abin Kuruvilla-MathewOscar CañeteJoan LeungEllen GilesCatherine MorganRenique TenhagenDavid WelchAcknowledgements
3. Speech is a complex signal that varies rapidly in pitch and intensity over timeTimeVoltage“listening in noise is hard”
4. Variability in speech perception 12 experienced adult cochlear implant usersAged 50.3 years on average (range 27 – 74 years) Duration of implant use 2.9 years on average (range 1.3 – 5.2 years)Duration of profound deafness 5.5 years on average (range 0 – 15 years)Nucleus CI–22M and SPEAK processing strategyKELLY, A.S., PURDY, S.C., THORNE, P.R., Electrophysiological and speech perception measures of auditory processing in experienced adult cochlear implant users. Clinical Neurophysiology, 116, 1235-1246, 2005.
5. Speech scores on HINT sentences & CNC wordsBetter usersPoorer users
6. Speech perception improves over time in profoundly deaf people receiving cochlear implants (N=10, adults)PURDY SC, KELLY AS. Changes in speech perception and auditory evoked potentials over time after unilateral cochlear implantation in postlingually deaf adults. Seminars in Hearing, 37: 62-73, 2016.
7. Effects of implant experience on cortical responsesC Pantev, A Dinnesen, B Ross, A Wollbrink, A Knief (2006) Dynamics of auditory plasticity after cochlear Implantation: A longitudinal study. Cerebral Cortex 16:31-36.
8.
9. Researchers use dual task paradigm to create “effortful” listeninghttps://www.sciencenews.org/article/impactful-distraction
10. Listening effort“the amount of processing resources (perceptual, attentional, cognitive, etc.) allocated to a specific auditory task, when the task demands are high (adverse listening conditions) and when the listener strives to reach a high-level of performance on the listening task”Jean-Pierre Gagné, Jana Besser, and Ulrike LemkeBehavioral Assessment of Listening Effort Using a Dual-Task Paradigm: A ReviewTrends in Hearing 2017, Vol. 21: 1–25
11. Measuring listening efforthttps://www.uwlistenlab.com/areas-of-researchPupil dilation ≈ cognitive loadReaction time/accuracy during a dual taskQuestionnaires, etc.Steel MM, Papsin BC, Gordon KA (2015) Binaural fusion and listening effort in children who use bilateral cochlear implants: a psychoacoustic and pupillometric study. PLOS ONE 10(2): e0117611.
12. 4. Brain neuroimaginghttps://sunnybrook.ca/content/?page=dept-medimg-mri
13. “frontal regions, including left inferior frontal gyrus…only engaged when listeners…attending to speech… elevated responses to degraded, compared with clear, speech…a neural marker of effortful listening”Brain activity (fMRI) during speech perception depends on attention & degradation of signalWild et al. (2012). Effortful Listening: The Processing of Degraded Speech Depends Critically on Attention J Neuroscience • 32(40):14010-21
14. http://www.baaudiology.org/files/6814/1769/2898/Dawes_listeningEffort.pdf
15. Measuring listening effort (Gosselin & Gagné 2010) using questionnaires e.g. Speech, Spatial & Qualities of Hearing Scale (SSQ)Qualities 14: Do you have to concentrate very much when listening to someone or something?Qualities 18: Do you have to put in a lot of effort to hear what is being said in conversation with others?Qualities 19: Can you easily ignore other sounds when trying to listen to something?http://www.caslpa.ca/english/resources/database/files/2010_CJSLPA_Vol_34/No_01_1-80/Gosselin_Gagne_CJSLPA_2010.pdf15
16. 16https://humansystems.arc.nasa.gov/groups/TLX/
17. 17https://humansystems.arc.nasa.gov/groups/tlx/
18. Either increase attention or reduce need for listening effort for successful listeningPicou EM, Ricketts TA, Hornsby BW. How hearing aids, background noise, and visual cues influence objective listening effort. Ear Hear 2013 Feb 20. hearing aids and reduced background noise (but not visual cues) reduced listening effortbut, there was individual variability++those with large working memory capacity were able to benefit from visual cues on a listening effort task in noisethose with slower verbal processing speed most helped by hearing aids in terms of reduced listening effort
19. N=27, 49-80 years (M 65.3 yrs, SD 8.22)mild to profound sloping sensorineural hearing loss, hearing aid benefitdual-task paradigm: words in 4-talker babble, speech recognition and reaction times measuredPress button fast as possible when a red rectangle appears
20. http://vocalsaints.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/Language-Processing-Disorder-Pathway.png
21. Cognitive processesExecutive function (“involved in complex cognitions, such as solving novel problems, modifying behaviour in the light of new information, generating strategies or sequencing complex actions” Elliot 2003 p.50)MemoryAttentionReference: R. Elliot. Executive functions & their disorders. British Medical Bulletin 2003;65:49–59)R. Joseph (2011). Neuroscience: Neuropsychology, Neuropsychiatry, Behavioral Neurology, Brain & Mind (Advanced Text). 4th Edn. University Press Science Publishers http://brainmind.com/LimbicLanguage.html
22. https://medium.com/@an.earthman/similarity-and-differences-between-cowans-and-baddeley-s-working-memory-models-23112a102a9b
23. Links between working memory and speech perception with hearing aidsStudies by Thomas Lunner and colleagues showed:Working memory capacity measured by the reading span test correlated with speech recognition thresholds in 72 new hearing aid users (reading span accounted for 40% of the variance in speech scores)Reading span task requires people to process and retain information simultaneouslyReferencesThomas Lunner (2003) Cognitive function in relation to hearing aid use. International Journal of Audiology, 42:sup1, 49-58.Thomas Lunner, Mary Rudner, Jerker Rönnberg (2009). Cognition and hearing aids. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 50, 395–403
24. Andy was stopped by the policeman because he crossed yellow heavenWhen you have read the sentences click the mouse to continueThis sentence makes sense. TRUE FALSESemantic categorization task
25. Reading span task“In the reading span task the participants determinedwhether each sentence made sense. Three sets of three sentences were presented first, followed by three sets of four sentences, then three sets of five sentences and three sets of six sentences. After each set of sentences, the participant was prompted to recall, in serial order, either the first word or the last word of each sentence in the set. The experimenter recorded the number of words correctly recalled regardless of order.”Rudner M1, 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 Sep;23(8):577-89.
26. Lunner et al. (2009)
27.
28. Study focused on investigation of SNR NR noise reduction algorithm & impact of cognition
29. Cognitive ability measured using Weschler Adult Intelligence Scale Fourth Edition (WAIS-IV Wechsler, 2008) Auditory digit span: forwards, backwards, sequencing (working memory), for exampleForward: 7 5 6 2 5 3 = 7 5 6 2 5 3Backward: 7 5 6 2 5 3 = 3 5 2 6 5 7Sequence: 7 5 6 2 5 3 = 2 3 5 5 6 7Coding: total number of correct symbols in timed period (processing speed)
30. ParticipantsN=13 adult Nucleus 6 CI recipients programmed with SCAN Age range 24-84 years (average=61 yrs, SD 24); 6 males, 7 females12 had late onset progressive hearing loss 1 had congenital/progressive hearing lossDuration of (self-rated) severe-profound HL in ear implanted 1-26 yearsCriteria for inclusion: score of >50% on CNC words on last test session / annual review; ≥ 9 months experience
31. Significant improvement in fixed SNR word score with SNR NR on, independent of cognitive ability & age (N=13)7% average ImprovementS0N0
32. Better speech scores with NR in people with better working memory scores
33. Dual task to measure listening effortListening task = primary taskHINT sentences in noise at speech reception threshold of about 71%)Visual number identification task = secondary taskcorrect identification of a number in a previous visual stream of numbersseries of white digits (1-6 digits) one at a time on the centre of the screen, one at a time for a period of 1.2 seconds, followed by a 2-s interval and lastly a presentation of a target digit presented in yellowspeed & accuracy measured
34. Listening effort?Visual reaction time did not change significantly with dual taskTask may not have been sufficiently difficult (Sarampalis et al., 2009; Desjardins and Doherty, 2014)ReferencesDesjardins JL, Doherty KA. (2014) The effect of hearing aid noise-reduction on listening effort in hearing impaired adults. Ear & Hearing 35(5):600-610.Sarampalis A, Kalluri S, Edwards B, & Hafter E. (2009). Objective measures of listening effort: Effects of background noise and noise reduction. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 52(5), 1230-40.
35. Two additional studiesAbin Kuruvilla-MathewOscar M CañeteJoan LeungEllen GilesCatherine MorganDavid WelchSuzanne Purdy
36. N6 Study #2 16 adults Nucleus® 6, CP900Cognition: Reading span, % correct recallPrimary task: Sentences in noise, SRT in dBSecondary task: Visual memory, reaction time & accuracyRecall 1st or last words of sequence of sentences in correct serial order.signal to noise ratio resulting in 50% correct measured using Australian Sentence Test in Noise (AuSTIN)1. Series of 1-6 digits2. Target3. Was Target present?
37. Listening in noise is effortful for people with Cis, even when they do well On OffNoise reductionRating Scale Mental Effort (RSME)
38. N7 study22 participants aged 22 to 76 years (M 59.14, SD 16.23)11 females, 11 males
39. SummaryListening effort can be measured based on reaction times, pupil dilation, brain responses, questionnaires, etcListening depends on hearing and cognition and is effortful, even with cochlear implantsOverall, noise reduction in cochlear implants improved speech perception and reduced listening effort
40. sc.purdy@auckland.ac.nz Thank you