ORIGINAL ARTICLE
INVESTIGATING THE ASSOCIATION BETWEEN WORKING MEMORY, SPEECH IDENTIFICATION IN NOISE, AND P300 IN ADULTS WITH HEARING IMPAIRMENT
Naveen K. Nagaraj 1, A-G  
,   Samuel R. Atcherson 2, A,C-E
 
More details
Hide details
1
Cognitive Hearing Science Laboratory, Department of Audiology and Speech Pathology, University of Arkansas for Medical Science/University of Arkansas at Little Rock, Little Rock, AR, USA
2
Auditory Electrophysiology and (Re)habilitation Laboratory, Department of Audiology and Speech Pathology, University of Arkansas for Medical Science/University of Arkansas at Little Rock, Little Rock, AR, USA
A - Research concept and design; B - Collection and/or assembly of data; C - Data analysis and interpretation; D - Writing the article; E - Critical revision of the article; F - Final approval of article;
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Naveen K. Nagaraj   

Naveen K. Nagaraj, Department of Audiology and Speech Pathology, 2801 S. University Avenue, Little Rock, AR 72204, USA, e-mail: nnagaraj@uams.edu
Publication date: 2020-04-10
 
J Hear Sci 2017;7(1):41–46
 
KEYWORDS
ABSTRACT
This study investigated the association between working memory capacity (WMC), P300 amplitude and latency, and their relation to speech identification in noise (SiN) in individuals with sensorineural hearing impairment (HI). Twenty adults (mean age=58 years) were recruited and their WMC was measured using a reading span task. SiN was evaluated using the clinical Quick speech-in-noise test. Auditory P300 latency and amplitude, which are known to index information processing, were recorded using a conventional oddball paradigm. WMC was significantly correlated with P300 latency, but was not associated with P300 amplitude (before or after controlling for age and magnitude of HI). In addition, SiN was not significantly correlated with WMC, P300 latency, or amplitude. P300 using tonal stimuli may be a good measure of speed of information processing and attentional control within the working memory system; however, it does not appear to be related to SiN in adults with HI.
 
REFERENCES (25)
1.
Baddeley AD. Working memory: Theories, models, and controversies. Annu Rev Psychol, 2012; 63: 1–29.
 
2.
Sutton S, Braren M, Zubin J, John ER. Evoked-potential correlates of stimulus uncertainty. Science, 1965; 150(3700): 1187–88.
 
3.
Polich J, Kok A. Cognitive and biological determinants of P300: An integrative review. Biol Psychol, 1995; 41(2): 103–46.
 
4.
Berti S. Switching attention within working memory is reflected in the P3a component of the human event-related brain potential. Front Hum Neurosci, 2016; 9: 701.
 
5.
Besser J, Koelewijn T, Zekveld AA, Kramer SE, Festen JM. How linguistic closure and verbal working memory relate to speech recognition in noise: A review. Trends Amplif, 2013; 17(2): 75–93.
 
6.
Rönnberg J, Lunner T, Zekveld A, Sörqvist P, Danielsson H, Lyxell B et al. The ease of language understanding (ELU) model: Theoretical, empirical, and clinical advances. Front Syst Neurosci, 2013; 7: 1–17.
 
7.
Besser J, Zekveld AA, Kramer SE, Rönnberg J, Festen JM. New measures of masked text recognition in relation to speech-innoise perception and their associations with age and cognitive abilities. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 2012; 55(1): 194–209.
 
8.
Füllgrabe C, Rosen S: Investigating the role of working memory in speech-in-noise identification for listeners with normal hearing. Adv Exp Med Biol, 2016; 894: 29–36.
 
9.
Füllgrabe C, Moore BC, Stone MA. Age-group differences in speech identification despite matched audiometrically normal hearing: Contributions from auditory temporal processing and cognition. Front Aging Neurosci, 2015; 6: 347.
 
10.
Killion MC, Niquette PA, Gudmundsen GI, Revit LJ, Banerjee S. Development of a quick speech-in-noise test for measuring signal-to-noise ratio loss in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am, 2004; 116(4): 2395–405.
 
11.
Byrne D, Dillon H. The National Acoustic Laboratories’ (NAL) new procedure for selecting the gain and frequency response of a hearing aid. Ear Hear, 1986; 7(4): 257–65.
 
12.
Unsworth N, Redick TS, Heitz RP, Broadway JM, Engle RW. Complex working memory span tasks and higher-order cognition: A latent-variable analysis of the relationship between processing and storage. Memory, 2009; 17(6): 635–54.
 
13.
Füllgrabe C, Rosen S. On the (un)importance of working memory in speech-in-noise processing for listeners with normal hearing thresholds. Front Psychol, 2016; 7: 1268.
 
14.
Barrouillet P, Bernardin S, Camos V. Time constraints and resource sharing in adults’ working memory spans. J Exp Psychol Gen, 2004; 133(1): 83–100.
 
15.
Cowan N. Attention and memory: An integrated framework. New York; Oxford: Oxford University Press; Clarendon Press, 1995.
 
16.
Polich J. Detection of change: Event-related potential and fMRI findings. Springer Science & Business Media, 2003.
 
17.
Barrouillet P, Portrat S, Camos V. On the law relating processing to storage in working memory. Psychol Rev, 2011; 118(2): 175–92.
 
18.
Towse JN, Hitch GJ. Is there a relationship between task demand and storage space in tests of working memory capacity? Q J Exp Psychol A, 1995; 48(1): 108–24.
 
19.
Kutas M, McCarthy M, Donchin E. Augmenting mental chronometry: The P300 as a measure of stimulus evaluation time. Science, 1977; 197(4305): 792–95.
 
20.
Magliero A, Bashore TR, Coles MG, Donchin E. On the dependence of P300 latency on stimulus evaluation processes. Psychophysiology, 1984; 21(2): 171–86.
 
21.
Akeroyd MA. Are individual differences in speech reception related to individual differences in cognitive ability? A survey of twenty experimental studies with normal and hearing-impaired adults. Int J Audiol, 2008; 47(Suppl. 2): S53–71.
 
22.
Holt LL, Lotto AJ. Speech perception within an auditory cognitive science framework. Curr Dir Psychol Sci, 2008; 17(1): 42–46.
 
23.
23 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): S99–105.
 
24.
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.
 
25.
Smith SL, Pichora-Fuller MK. Associations between speech understanding and auditory and visual tests of verbal working memory: effects of linguistic complexity, task, age, and hearing loss. Audit Cogn Neurosci, 2015; 6: 1394.