COGNITIVE SPARE CAPACITY AS A MEASURE OF LISTENING EFFORT
Mary Rudner 1, 2,   Elaine Hoi-Ning Ng 1, 2,   Niklas Ronnberg 1, 3,   Sushmit Mishra 1, 2,   Jerker Ronnberg 1, 2,   Thomas Lunner 1, 2, 3, 4,   Stefan Stenfelt 1, 3
 
More details
Hide details
1
Linnaeus Centre HEAD, Swedish Institute for Disability Research, Linkoping University, Sweden
2
Department of Behavioural Sciences and Learning, Linkoping University, Sweden
3
Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Linkoping University, Sweden
4
Oticon A/S, Research Centre Eriksholm, Snekkersten, Denmark
Publication date: 2020-04-20
 
J Hear Sci 2011;1(2):47–49
 
KEYWORDS
ABSTRACT
There has been a recent interest in listening effort as a factor to be taken into account in the audiological clinic. However, the term “listening effort” is poorly determined and needs to be defined before it can be used as a clinical or research tool. One way of understanding listening effort is in terms of the cognitive resources expended during listening. Cognitive capacity is finite and thus if cognitive capacity is used up during the act of listening to speech there will be fewer cognitive resources left to process the content of the message conveyed. We have introduced the term Cognitive Spare Capacity (CSC) to refer to residual cognitive capacity once successful listening has taken place. This extended abstract describes the work we have carried out to date on measures of CSC for research and clinical use. In the course of this work we have developed tests to assess the role of memory load, executive function and audiovisual integration in CSC under challenging conditions. When these tests are fully developed, our aim is that they should allow objective individual assessment of listening effort in cognitive terms. Results to date indicate that under challenging conditions, CSC is an arena for executive processing of temporarily stored information; it is related to individual working memory capacity and can be enhanced by hearing aid signal processing.
 
REFERENCES (24)
1.
Baddeley A: The episodic buffer: a new component of working memory? Trends Cogn Sci, 2000; 4(11): 417–23.
 
2.
Bernstein JGW, Grant KW: Auditory and auditory-visual intelligibility of speech in fluctuating maskers for normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am, 2009; 125(5): 3358–72.
 
3.
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: 553–66.
 
4.
Fraser S, Gagné J-P, Alepins M, Dubois P: Evaluating the effort expended to understand speech in noise using a dual-task paradigm: The effects of providing visual speech cues. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 2010; 53(1): 18–33.
 
5.
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.1): S77–85.
 
6.
Gatehouse S, Naylor G, Elberling C: Linear and non-linear hearing aid fittings – 2. Patterns of candidature. Int J Audiol, 2006; 45: 153–71.
 
7.
Hagerman B, Kinnefors C: Efficient adaptive methods for measurements of speech reception thresholds in quiet and in noise. Scand Audiol, 1995; 24: 71–77.
 
8.
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: 227–37.
 
9.
Lunner T: Cognitive function in relation to hearing aid use. Int J Audiol, 2003; 42(Suppl. 1): S49–58.
 
10.
Lunner T, Sundewall-Thorén E: Interactions between cognition, compression, and listening conditions: effects on speechin-noise performance in a two-channel hearing aid. J Am Acad Audiol, 2007; 18: 539–52.
 
11.
Mishra S, Rudner M, Lunner T, Rönnberg J: Speech understanding and cognitive spare capacity. In: Buchholz JM, Dau T, Dalsgaard JC, Poulsen T (eds.), Binaural processing and spatial hearing, (ISAAR: Elsinore, Denmark), 2010; 305–13.
 
12.
Miyake A, Friedman NP, Emerson MJ et al: The unity and diversity of executive functions and their contribution to complex frontal lobe tasks: A latent variable analysis. Cogn Psychol, 2000; 41: 49–100.
 
13.
Murdock BB: Human memory: Theory and data. Potomac, MD: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1974.
 
14.
Ng EHN, Rudner M, Lunner T, et al, (under review): Improved cognitive processing of speech for hearing aid users with noise reduction.
 
15.
Nilsson M, Soli SD, Sullivan JA: Development of the Hearing In Noise Test for the measurement of speech reception thresholds in quiet and in noise. J Acoust Soc Am, 1994; 95: 1085–99.
 
16.
Pichora-Fuller MK: Preceptual effort and apparent cognitive decline: Implications for audiologic rehabilitation. Semin Hear, 2006; 27(4): 284–93.
 
17.
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. 2): S171–77.
 
18.
Rönnberg J, Rudner M, Lunner T, Zekveld AA: When cognition kicks in: Working memory and speech understanding in noise. Noise & Health, 2010; 12(49): 263–69. DOI: 10.4103/1463-1741.70505.
 
19.
Rönnberg N, Stenfelt S, Rudner M: Testing listening effort for speech comprehension using the individuals’ cognitive spare capacity. Audiol Res, 2011; 1: e23, 78–81.
 
20.
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: 405–18.
 
21.
Rudner M, Foo C, Sundewall Thorén E et al: Phonological mismatch and explicit cognitive processing in a sample of 102 hearing aid users. Int J Audiol, 2008; 47 (Suppl. 2): S163–70.
 
22.
Rudner M, Rönnberg J, Lunner T: Working memory supports listening in noise for persons with hearing impairment. J Am Acad Audiol, 2011; 22: 156–67.
 
23.
Sarampalis A, Kalluri S, Edwards B et al: Objective measures of listening effort: effects of background noise and noise reduction. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 2009; 52: 1230–40.
 
24.
Wang D, Kjems U, Pedersen MS et al: Speech intelligibility in background noise with ideal binary time-frequency masking. J Acoust Soc Am, 2009; 125: 2336–47.