Effects of Age on the Neural Tracking of Speech in Noise
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Participants
2.2. Cognitive Testing
- (1)
- The Korean version of Mini-Mental Status Examination (MMSE-K): The MMSE [50] is a widely used cognitive screening tool that assesses functions such as orientation, language, attention, visuospatial skills, and memory. In the Korean version, MMSE-KC, the reading and writing tasks were replaced by two judgment-based items to accommodate the significant number of illiterate individuals in Korea. The test has a maximum score of 30.
- (2)
- The Korean version of the Short Blessed Test (SBT-K): The SBT-K consists of 6 items that evaluate orientation, delayed memory, and concentration. It has been designed to suit the characteristics of the Korean language. This test includes questions about the current year, month, and time; counting backward from 20 to 1; saying the months of the year in reverse order; and delayed recall of an address and a person’s name. Scores are based on the number of errors in each item, with more errors resulting in a higher score. The maximum score is 28.
- (3)
- Word list memory: This free-recall memory test evaluates the ability to learn new verbal information. It involves three trials, each presenting a list of 10 words in a different order. The participant reads each word aloud as it appears. After each trial, the participant has 90 s to recall as many words as possible. The Korean version of the Word List Memory task was designed considering Korean language characteristics, including phonemic similarity, semantics, and word length equivalence. The maximum score across the three trials is 30.
- (4)
- Word list recall: This test assesses the ability to remember words. Participants have up to 90 s to recall the 10 words previously given in the word list memory task. The maximum score for this test is 10. The values presented in the table are converted to percentages based on this maximum score.
- (5)
- Word list recognition: This test measures the ability to recognize target words from the word list memory task including 10 distractor words. To minimize the chance of guessing correctly, the final score is calculated by adding the total correct answers for both the target and distractor words, then subtracting 10. If the result is less than zero, the score is set to zero. The test has a maximum score of 10.
- (6)
- Korean version of the Boston Naming Test (K-BNT): This test assesses visual naming capability by showing 15-line drawings of familiar objects. The drawings are organized into three sets of five, each representing objects with high, medium, or low frequency in the Korean language. The maximum score is 15.
- (7)
- Word fluency: This test evaluates verbal production, semantic memory, and language skills. Participants are asked to list as many animals as they can within one minute.
- (8)
- Constructional praxis: This task evaluates visuospatial and constructional skills. Participants are asked to copy four-line drawings of increasing complexity: a circle, a diamond, intersecting rectangles, and a cube. Each figure must be copied within 2 min. The maximum score for accurately drawing all four figures is 11.
- (9)
- Constructional recall: This task evaluates the ability to visuospatial recall, after a brief delay, the four line drawings from the Constructional praxis task. The maximum score for correctly drawing all four figures is 11.
2.3. EEG Experimental Design and Procedure
2.3.1. Stimuli and Experiment Procedure
2.3.2. Acquisition and Pre-Processing of EEG Data
2.4. Data Analyses
3. Results
3.1. Behavioral Evaluation of SRS
3.2. Age-Related Differences in Neural Tracking of Speech in Noise
3.3. Correlations Between Cognitive Function, Age, and Hearing Ability in Older Adults (PTA and SRT)
3.4. Correlation with Working Memory of Older Adults with Different Hearing Abilities
4. Discussion
4.1. Age-Related Changes in Speech Perception in Noise
4.2. Neural Tracking Changes Across Aging
4.3. Relation Between Neural Tracking and Working Memory in Older Adults
4.4. Limitations and Future Work
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Abbreviations
EEG | Electroencephalography |
SNR | Signal-to-Noise Ratio |
PTA | Pure Tone Average |
SRT | Speech Reception Threshold |
HL | Hearing Level |
CERAD-K | The Korean version of Disease Neuropsychological Assessment |
MMSE-K | The Korean version of Mini-Mental Status Examination |
SBT-K | The Korean version of the Short Blessed Test |
K-BNT | Korean version of the Boston Naming Test |
SRS | Speech Recognition Scores |
SSN | Speech-Shaped Noise |
ANSI | American National Standards Institute |
MCI | Mild Cognitive Impairment |
FFR | Frequency-Following Response |
SiN | Speech-in-Noise |
θ-PLV | Theta-Band Phase-Locking Values |
References
- Abel, S.M.; Sass-Kortsak, A.; Naugler, J.J. The role of high-frequency hearing in age-related speech understanding deficits. Scand. Audiol. 2000, 29, 131–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Souza, P.E.; Turner, C.W. Masking of speech in young and elderly listeners with hearing loss. J. Speech Hear. Res. 1994, 37, 655–661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gates, G.A.; Mills, J.H. Presbycusis. Lancet. 2005, 366, 1111–1120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Fjell, A.M.; Walhovd, K.B.; Fennema-Notestine, C.; McEvoy, L.K.; Hagler, D.J.; Holland, D.; Brewer, J.B.; Dale, A.M. One-year brain atrophy evident in healthy aging. J. Neurosci. 2009, 29, 15223–15231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ouda, L.; Profant, O.; Syka, J. Age-related changes in the central auditory system. Cell Tissue Res. 2015, 361, 337–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wassenaar, T.M.; Yaffe, K.; van der Werf, Y.D.; Sexton, C.E. Associations between modifiable risk factors and white matter of the aging brain: Insights from diffusion tensor imaging studies. Neurobiol. Aging 2019, 80, 56–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alain, C.; Roye, A.; Salloum, C. Effects of age-related hearing loss and background noise on neuromagnetic activity from auditory cortex. Front. Syst. Neurosci. 2014, 8, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ding, N.; Chatterjee, M.; Simon, J.Z. Robust cortical entrainment to the speech envelope relies on the spectro-temporal fine structure. Neuroimage 2014, 88, 41–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Etard, O.; Reichenbach, T. Neural Speech Tracking in the Theta and in the Delta Frequency Band. Differentially Encode Clarity and Comprehension of Speech in Noise. J. Neurosci. 2019, 39, 5750–5759. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- O’SUllivan, J.A.; Power, A.J.; Mesgarani, N.; Rajaram, S.; Foxe, J.J.; Shinn-Cunningham, B.G.; Slaney, M.; Shamma, S.A.; Lalor, E.C. Attentional Selection in a Cocktail Party Environment Can Be Decoded from Single-Trial EEG. Cereb. Cortex 2015, 25, 1697–1706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Presacco, A.; Simon, J.Z.; Anderson, S. Speech-in-noise representation in the aging midbrain and cortex: Effects of hearing loss. PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0213899. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vanthornhout, J.; Decruy, L.; Wouters, J.; Simon, J.Z.; Francart, T. Speech Intelligibility Predicted from Neural Entrainment of the Speech Envelope. J. Assoc. Res. Otolaryngol. 2018, 19, 181–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sommers, M.S.; Danielson, S.M. Inhibitory processes and spoken word recognition in young and older adults: The interaction of lexical competition and semantic context. Psychol. Aging 1999, 14, 458–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tiedt, H.O.; Ehlen, F.; Klostermann, F. Age-related dissociation of N400 effect and lexical priming. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 20291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Giraud, A.-L.; Poeppel, D. Cortical oscillations and speech processing: Emerging computational principles and operations. Nat. Neurosci. 2012, 15, 511–517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ding, N.; Simon, J.Z. Emergence of neural encoding of auditory objects while listening to competing speakers. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2012, 109, 11854–11859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Schroeder, C.E.; Lakatos, P. Low-frequency neuronal oscillations as instruments of sensory selection. Trends Neurosci. 2009, 32, 9–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Keshavarzi, M.; Kegler, M.; Kadir, S.; Reichenbach, T. Transcranial alternating current stimulation in the theta band but not in the delta band modulates the comprehension of naturalistic speech in noise. Neuroimage 2020, 210, 116557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brodbeck, C.; Presacco, A.; Anderson, S.; Simon, J.Z. Over-representation of speech in older adults originates from early response in higher order auditory cortex. Acta Acust. United Acust. 2018, 104, 774–777. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ding, N.; Melloni, L.; Zhang, H.; Tian, X.; Poeppel, D. Cortical tracking of hierarchical linguistic structures in connected speech. Nat. Neurosci. 2016, 19, 158–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McHaney, J.R.; Gnanateja, G.N.; Smayda, K.E.; Zinszer, B.D.; Chandrasekaran, B. Cortical Tracking of Speech in Delta Band Relates to Individual Differences in Speech in Noise Comprehension in Older Adults. Ear Hear. 2021, 42, 343–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Slade, K.; Plack, C.J.; Nuttall, H.E. The Effects of Age-Related Hearing Loss on the Brain and Cognitive Function. Trends Neurosci. 2020, 43, 810–821. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fitzhugh, M.C.; Schaefer, S.Y.; Baxter, L.C.; Rogalsky, C. Cognitive and neural predictors of speech comprehension in noisy backgrounds in older adults. Lang. Cogn. Neurosci. 2021, 36, 269–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Harris, K.C.; Eckert, M.A.; Ahlstrom, J.B.; Dubno, J.R. Age-related differences in gap detection: Effects of task difficulty and cognitive ability. Hear. Res. 2010, 264, 21–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schvartz, K.C.; Chatterjee, M.; Gordon-Salant, S. Recognition of spectrally degraded phonemes by younger, middle-aged, and older normal-hearing listeners. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2008, 124, 3972–3988. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wong, P.C.M.; Ettlinger, M.; Sheppard, J.P.; Gunasekera, G.M.; Dhar, S. Neuroanatomical characteristics and speech perception in noise in older adults. Ear Hear. 2010, 31, 471–479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wong, P.C.M.; Uppunda, A.K.; Parrish, T.B.; Dhar, S. Cortical mechanisms of speech perception in noise. J. Speech Lang. Hear. Res. 2008, 51, 1026–1041. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Conway, A.R.A.; Cowan, N.; Bunting, M.F. The cocktail party phenomenon revisited: The importance of working memory capacity. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 2001, 8, 331–335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kane, M.J.; Bleckley, M.K.; Conway, A.R.A.; Engle, R.W. A controlled-attention view of working-memory capacity. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 2001, 130, 169–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nagaraj, N.K. Working Memory and Speech Comprehension in Older Adults With Hearing Impairment. J. Speech Lang. Hear. Res. 2017, 60, 2949–2964. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nagaraj, N.K.; Knapp, A.N. No evidence of relation between working memory and perception of interrupted speech in young adults. J Acoust Soc Am. 2015, 138, EL145–EL150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Classon, E.; Rudner, M.; Rönnberg, J. Working memory compensates for hearing related phonological processing deficit. J. Commun. Disord. 2013, 46, 17–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- McGarrigle, R.; Munro, K.J.; Dawes, P.; Stewart, A.J.; Moore, D.R.; Barry, J.G.; Amitay, S. Listening effort and fatigue: What exactly are we measuring? A British Society of Audiology Cognition in Hearing Special Interest Group ‘white paper’. Int. J. Audiol. 2014, 53, 433–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Peelle, J.E. Listening Effort: How the Cognitive Consequences of Acoustic Challenge Are Reflected in Brain and Behavior. Ear Hear. 2018, 39, 204–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gatehouse, S.; Gordon, J. Response times to speech stimuli as measures of benefit from amplification. Br. J. Audiol. 1990, 24, 63–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Heinrich, A.; Schneider, B.A.; Craik, F.I. Investigating the influence of continuous babble on auditory short-term memory performance. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 2008, 61, 735–751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Houben, R.; van Doorn-Bierman, M.; Dreschler, W.A. Using response time to speech as a measure for listening effort. Int. J. Audiol. 2013, 52, 753–761. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kramer, S.E.; Kapteyn, T.S.; Festen, J.M.; Kuik, D.J. Assessing aspects of auditory handicap by means of pupil dilatation. Audiology 1997, 36, 155–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zekveld, A.A.; Kramer, S.E. Cognitive processing load across a wide range of listening conditions: Insights from pupillometry. Psychophysiology 2014, 51, 277–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zekveld, A.A.; Kramer, S.E.; Festen, J.M. Cognitive load during speech perception in noise: The influence of age, hearing loss, and cognition on the pupil response. Ear Hear. 2011, 32, 498–510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pichora-Fuller, M.K.; Souza, P.E. Effects of aging on auditory processing of speech. Int J Audiol. 2003, 42 (Suppl. S2), 11–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tun, P.A.; McCoy, S.; Wingfield, A. Aging, hearing acuity, and the attentional costs of effortful listening. Psychol. Aging. 2009, 24, 761–766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ward, K.M.; Shen, J.; Souza, P.E.; Grieco-Calub, T.M. Age-Related Differences in Listening Effort During Degraded Speech Recognition. Ear Hear. 2017, 38, 74–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wisniewski, M.G.; Thompson, E.R.; Iyer, N.; Estepp, J.R.; Goder-Reiser, M.N.; Sullivan, S.C. Frontal midline theta power as an index of listening effort. Neuroreport 2015, 26, 94–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, J.-S.; Lim, D.; Hong, H.-N.; Shin, H.-W.; Lee, K.-D.; Hong, B.-N.; Lee, J.-H. Development of Korean Standard Monosyllabic Word Listsfor Adults (KS-MWL-A). Audiol. Speech Res. 2008, 4, 126–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dobreva, M.S.; O’Neill, W.E.; Paige, G.D. Influence of aging on human sound localization. J. Neurophysiol. 2011, 105, 2471–2486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Poelmans, H.; Luts, H.; Vandermosten, M.; Ghesquière, P.; Wouters, J. Hemispheric asymmetry of auditory steady-state responses to monaural and diotic stimulation. J. Assoc. Res. Otolaryngol. 2012, 13, 867–876. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, J.H.; Lee, K.U.; Lee, D.Y.; Kim, K.W.; Jhoo, J.H.; Kim, J.H.; Lee, K.H.; Kim, S.Y.; Han, S.H.; Woo, J.I. Development of the Korean version of the Consortium to Establish a Registry for Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Packet (CERAD-K): Clinical and neuropsychological assessment batteries. J. Gerontol. B Psychol. Sci. Soc. Sci. 2002, 57, P47–P53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Folstein, M.F.; Folstein, S.E.; McHugh, P.R. “Mini-mental state”. A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J. Psychiatr. Res. 1975, 12, 189–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- An, H.; Lee, J.; Suh, M.-W.; Lim, Y. Neural correlation of speech envelope tracking for background noise in normal hearing. Front. Neurosci. 2023, 17, 1268591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Heitz, R.P. The speed-accuracy tradeoff: History, physiology, methodology, and behavior. Front. Neurosci. 2014, 8, 150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Crosse, M.J.; Di Liberto, G.M.; Bednar, A.; Lalor, E.C. The Multivariate Temporal Response Function (mTRF) Toolbox: A MATLAB Toolbox for Relating Neural Signals to Continuous Stimuli. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 2016, 10, 604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ding, N.; Simon, J.Z. Cortical entrainment to continuous speech: Functional roles and interpretations. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 2014, 8, 311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Calderone, D.J.; Lakatos, P.; Butler, P.D.; Castellanos, F.X. Entrainment of neural oscillations as a modifiable substrate of attention. Trends Cogn. Sci. 2014, 18, 300–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chambers, A.R.; Resnik, J.; Yuan, Y.; Whitton, J.P.; Edge, A.S.; Liberman, M.C.; Polley, D.B. Central Gain Restores Auditory Processing following Near-Complete Cochlear Denervation. Neuron. 2016, 89, 867–879. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wong, D.D.E.; Fuglsang, S.A.; Hjortkjær, J.; Ceolini, E.; Slaney, M.; de Cheveigné, A. A Comparison of Regularization Methods in Forward and Backward Models for Auditory Attention Decoding. Front. Neurosci. 2018, 12, 531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lakens, D. Calculating and reporting effect sizes to facilitate cumulative science: A practical primer for t-tests and ANOVAs. Front. Psychol. 2013, 4, 863. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wingfield, A.; Poon, L.W.; Lombardi, L.; Lowe, D. Speed of processing in normal aging: Effects of speech rate, linguistic structure, and processing time. J. Gerontol. 1985, 40, 579–585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yanz, J.L.; Anderson, S.M. Comparison of speech perception skills in young and old listeners. Ear Hear. 1984, 5, 134–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hultsch, D.F.; MacDonald, S.W.S.; Dixon, R.A. Variability in reaction time performance of younger and older adults. J. Gerontol. B Psychol. Sci. Soc. Sci. 2002, 57, P101–P115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Salthouse, T.A. Selective review of cognitive aging. J. Int. Neuropsychol. Soc. 2010, 16, 754–760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Helfer, K.S.; Wilber, L.A. Hearing loss, aging, and speech perception in reverberation and noise. J. Speech Hear. Res. 1990, 33, 149–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ben-David, B.M.; Tse, V.Y.; Schneider, B.A. Does it take older adults longer than younger adults to perceptually segregate a speech target from a background masker? Hear. Res. 2012, 290, 55–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Snyder, J.S.; Alain, C. Age-related changes in neural activity associated with concurrent vowel segregation. Brain Res. Cogn. Brain Res. 2005, 24, 492–499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brungart, D.S.; Barrett, M.E.; Cohen, J.I.; Fodor, C.; Yancey, C.M.; Gordon-Salant, S. Objective Assessment of Speech Intelligibility in Crowded Public Spaces. Ear Hear. 2020, 41 (Suppl. S1), 68S–78S. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, Y.-H.; Stangl, E.; Zhang, X.; Perkins, J.; Eilers, E. Psychometric Functions of Dual-Task Paradigms for Measuring Listening Effort. Ear Hear. 2016, 37, 660–670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kurthen, I.; Christen, A.; Meyer, M.; Giroud, N. Older adults’ neural tracking of interrupted speech is a function of task difficulty. Neuroimage 2022, 262, 119580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Howard, M.F.; Poeppel, D. Discrimination of speech stimuli based on neuronal response phase patterns depends on acoustics but not comprehension. J. Neurophysiol. 2010, 104, 2500–2511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Luo, H.; Poeppel, D. Phase patterns of neuronal responses reliably discriminate speech in human auditory cortex. Neuron 2007, 54, 1001–1010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rosen, S. Temporal information in speech: Acoustic, auditory and linguistic aspects. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 1992, 336, 367–373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arai, T.; Pavel, M.; Hermansky, H.; Avendano, C. Syllable intelligibility for temporally filtered LPC cepstral trajectories. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1999, 105, 2783–2791. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Drullman, R.; Festen, J.M.; Plomp, R. Effect of temporal envelope smearing on speech reception. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1994, 95, 1053–1064. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shannon, R.V.; Zeng, F.G.; Kamath, V.; Wygonski, J.; Ekelid, M. Speech recognition with primarily temporal cues. Science 1995, 270, 303–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Di Liberto, G.M.; O’sUllivan, J.A.; Lalor, E.C. Low-Frequency Cortical Entrainment to Speech Reflects Phoneme-Level Processing. Curr. Biol. 2015, 25, 2457–2465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Donhauser, P.W.; Baillet, S. Two Distinct Neural Timescales for Predictive Speech Processing. Neuron 2020, 105, 385–393.e9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Decruy, L.; Vanthornhout, J.; Francart, T. Evidence for enhanced neural tracking of the speech envelope underlying age-related speech-in-noise difficulties. J. Neurophysiol. 2019, 122, 601–615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schmitt, R.; Meyer, M.; Giroud, N. Better speech-in-noise comprehension is associated with enhanced neural speech tracking in older adults with hearing impairment. Cortex 2022, 151, 133–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brayne, C.; Calloway, P. The association of education and socioeconomic status with the Mini Mental State Examination and the clinical diagnosis of dementia in elderly people. Age Ageing 1990, 19, 91–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pliatsikas, C.; Veríssimo, J.; Babcock, L.; Pullman, M.Y.; A Glei, D.; Weinstein, M.; Goldman, N.; Ullman, M.T. Working memory in older adults declines with age, but is modulated by sex and education. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 2019, 72, 1308–1327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weiss, B.D.; Reed, R.; Kligman, E.W.; Abyad, A. Literacy and performance on the Mini-Mental State Examination. J. Am. Geriatr. Soc. 1995, 43, 807–810. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ylikoski, R.; Erkinjuntti, T.; Sulkava, R.; Juva, K.; Tilvis, R.; Valvanne, J. Correction for age, education and other demographic variables in the use of the Mini Mental State Examination in Finland. Acta Neurol. Scand. 1992, 85, 391–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wayne, R.V.; Johnsrude, I.S. A review of causal mechanisms underlying the link between age-related hearing loss and cognitive decline. Ageing Res. Rev. 2015, 23 Pt B, 154–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Amichetti, N.M.; Stanley, R.S.; White, A.G.; Wingfield, A. Monitoring the capacity of working memory: Executive control and effects of listening effort. Mem. Cognit. 2013, 41, 839–849. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McCoy, S.L.; Tun, P.A.; Cox, L.C.; Colangelo, M.; Stewart, R.A.; Wingfield, A. Hearing loss and perceptual effort: Downstream effects on older adults’ memory for speech. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. A 2005, 58, 22–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wingfield, A.; Tun, P.A. Cognitive supports and cognitive constraints on comprehension of spoken language. J. Am. Acad. Audiol. 2007, 18, 548–558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pisoni, D.B.; Cleary, M. Measures of working memory span and verbal rehearsal speed in deaf children after cochlear implantation. Ear Hear. 2003, 24 (Suppl. S1), 106S–120S. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kronenberger, W.G.; Pisoni, D.B.; Harris, M.S.; Hoen, H.M.; Xu, H.; Miyamoto, R.T. Profiles of verbal working memory growth predict speech and language development in children with cochlear implants. J. Speech Lang. Hear. Res. 2013, 56, 805–825. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Watson, D.R.; Titterington, J.; Henry, A.; Toner, J.G. Auditory sensory memory and working memory processes in children with normal hearing and cochlear implants. Audiol. Neurootol. 2007, 12, 65–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kuchinsky, S.E.; Vaden, K.I.; Keren, N.I.; Harris, K.C.; Ahlstrom, J.B.; Dubno, J.R.; Eckert, M.A. Word intelligibility and age predict visual cortex activity during word listening. Cereb. Cortex 2012, 22, 1360–1371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peelle, J.E.; Troiani, V.; Wingfield, A.; Grossman, M. Neural processing during older adults’ comprehension of spoken sentences: Age differences in resource allocation and connectivity. Cereb. Cortex 2010, 20, 773–782. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baddeley, A. Working memory: Theories, models, and controversies. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2012, 63, 1–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Erönnberg, J.; Elunner, T.; Ezekveld, A.; Esörqvist, P.; Edanielsson, H.; Elyxell, B.; Edahlström, Ö.; Esignoret, C.; Estenfelt, S.; Epichora-Fuller, M.K.; et al. The Ease of Language Understanding (ELU) model: Theoretical, empirical, and clinical advances. Front. Syst. Neurosci. 2013, 7, 31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rönnberg, J.; Holmer, E.; Rudner, M. Cognitive hearing science and ease of language understanding. Int. J. Audiol. 2019, 58, 247–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kilman, L.; Zekveld, A.; Hällgren, M.; Rönnberg, J. The influence of non-native language proficiency on speech perception performance. Front. Psychol. 2014, 5, 651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Magimairaj, B.M.; Nagaraj, N.K.; Champlin, C.A.; Thibodeau, L.K.; Loeb, D.F.; Gillam, R.B. Speech Perception in Noise Predicts Oral Narrative Comprehension in Children With Developmental Language Disorder. Front. Psychol. 2021, 12, 735026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Frisina, D.R.; Frisina, R.D. Speech recognition in noise and presbycusis: Relations to possible neural mechanisms. Hear. Res. 1997, 106, 95–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Tun, P.A.; O’2035KAne, G.; Wingfield, A. Distraction by competing speech in young and older adult listeners. Psychol. Aging 2002, 17, 453–467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zekveld, A.A.; Heslenfeld, D.J.; Festen, J.M.; Schoonhoven, R. Top-down and bottom-up processes in speech comprehension. Neuroimage 2006, 32, 1826–1836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mai, G.; Howell, P. The possible role of early-stage phase-locked neural activities in speech-in-noise perception in human adults across age and hearing loss. Hear. Res. 2023, 427, 108647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Older Adult | |
---|---|
Age (years) | 72.2 ± 4.6 |
Educational duration (years) | 11.6 ± 4 |
CERAD-K | |
MMSE-KC | 26.2 ± 1.8 |
Short Blessed Test | 1.7 ± 1.5 |
Word list memory | 17.7 ± 3 |
Word list recall | 71.9 ± 21.1 |
Word list recognition | 8.5 ± 1.2 |
Boston naming test | 11.6 ± 1.6 |
Word fluency | 18.4 ± 3.5 |
Constructional praxis | 10.6 ± 0.8 |
Constructional recall | 6.4 ± 2.7 |
Trail making test A | 54.0 ± 24.7 |
Trail making test B | 139.5 ± 51.9 |
Hearing tests | |
PTA right ear (dB HL) | 20.4 ± 6 |
PTA left ear (dB HL) | 19.1 ± 7.5 |
SRT right ear (dB HL) | 15.8 ± 7.2 |
SRT left ear (dB HL) | 14.1 ± 6.7 |
Subtest Score | Predictor | Standardized Beta Coefficient | R Square |
---|---|---|---|
MMSE | Neural tracking in SRS25 | −0.110 | 0.118 |
Neural tracking in SRS50 | 0.282 | ||
Neural tracking in SRS75 | 0.027 | ||
Neural tracking in SRS95 | −0.432 | ||
Word list memory | Neural tracking in SRS25 | 0.238 | 0.024 |
Neural tracking in SRS50 | 0.089 | ||
Neural tracking in SRS75 | −0.049 | ||
Neural tracking in SRS95 | −0.056 | ||
Word list recall | Neural tracking in SRS25 | −0.286 | 0.317 |
Neural tracking in SRS50 | 0.418 | ||
Neural tracking in SRS75 | −0.465 | ||
Neural tracking in SRS95 | 0.107 | ||
Word list recognition | Neural tracking in SRS25 | 0.683 * | 0.432 * |
Neural tracking in SRS50 | 0.163 | ||
Neural tracking in SRS75 | −0.997 * | ||
Neural tracking in SRS95 | 0.056 | ||
Constructional recall | Neural tracking in SRS25 | 0.4470 | 0.086 |
Neural tracking in SRS50 | 0.191 | ||
Neural tracking in SRS75 | −0.281 | ||
Neural tracking in SRS95 | −0.262 |
Group | Subtest Score | Predictor | Standardized Beta Coefficient | R Square |
---|---|---|---|---|
lower SRT group | Word list memory | Neural tracking in SRS25 | 0.302 | 0.419 |
Neural tracking in SRS50 | 0.384 | |||
Neural tracking in SRS75 | 0.667 | |||
Neural tracking in SRS95 | −0.801 | |||
Word list recall | Neural tracking in SRS25 | −1.556 | 0.507 | |
Neural tracking in SRS50 | −0.740 | |||
Neural tracking in SRS75 | −0.937 | |||
Neural tracking in SRS95 | 1.645 | |||
Word list recognition | Neural tracking in SRS25 | 0.329 | 0.270 | |
Neural tracking in SRS50 | −0.070 | |||
Neural tracking in SRS75 | −0.132 | |||
Neural tracking in SRS95 | −0.446 | |||
Constructional recall | Neural tracking in SRS25 | 0.958 ** | 0.801 * | |
Neural tracking in SRS50 | 0.691 ** | |||
Neural tracking in SRS75 | −0.077 | |||
Neural tracking in SRS95 | −0.713 * | |||
higher SRT group | Word list memory | Neural tracking in SRS25 | 0.032 | 0.114 |
Neural tracking in SRS50 | 0.169 | |||
Neural tracking in SRS75 | −0.558 | |||
Neural tracking in SRS95 | 0.236 | |||
Word list recall | Neural tracking in SRS25 | 0.103 | 0.540 | |
Neural tracking in SRS50 | 1.426 | |||
Neural tracking in SRS75 | −1.015 | |||
Neural tracking in SRS95 | −0.055 | |||
Word list recognition | Neural tracking in SRS25 | 0.888 * | 0.787 * | |
Neural tracking in SRS50 | 0.715 | |||
Neural tracking in SRS75 | −1.536 * | |||
Neural tracking in SRS95 | −0.087 | |||
Constructional recall | Neural tracking in SRS25 | −0.203 | 0.453 | |
Neural tracking in SRS50 | −0.638 | |||
Neural tracking in SRS75 | 0.074 | |||
Neural tracking in SRS95 | 0.004 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
An, H.; Lee, J.; Park, Y.-j.; Suh, M.-W.; Lim, Y. Effects of Age on the Neural Tracking of Speech in Noise. Brain Sci. 2025, 15, 874. https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci15080874
An H, Lee J, Park Y-j, Suh M-W, Lim Y. Effects of Age on the Neural Tracking of Speech in Noise. Brain Sciences. 2025; 15(8):874. https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci15080874
Chicago/Turabian StyleAn, HyunJung, JeeWon Lee, Young-jin Park, Myung-Whan Suh, and Yoonseob Lim. 2025. "Effects of Age on the Neural Tracking of Speech in Noise" Brain Sciences 15, no. 8: 874. https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci15080874
APA StyleAn, H., Lee, J., Park, Y.-j., Suh, M.-W., & Lim, Y. (2025). Effects of Age on the Neural Tracking of Speech in Noise. Brain Sciences, 15(8), 874. https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci15080874