Acceptance of Background Noise, Working Memory Capacity, and Auditory Evoked Potentials in Subjects with Normal Hearing
- 1 July 2012
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Georg Thieme Verlag KG in Journal of the American Academy of Audiology
- Vol. 23 (07), 542-552
- https://doi.org/10.3766/jaaa.23.7.6
Abstract
Background: The acceptable noise level (ANL) test is a method for quantifying the amount of background noise that subjects accept when listening to speech. Large variations in ANL have been seen between normal-hearing subjects and between studies of normal-hearing subjects, but few explanatory variables have been identified. Purpose: To explore a possible relationship between a Swedish version of the ANL test, working memory capacity (WMC), and auditory evoked potentials (AEPs). Research Design: ANL, WMC, and AEP were tested in a counterbalanced order across subjects. Study Sample: Twenty-one normal-hearing subjects participated in the study (14 females and 7 males; aged 20–39 yr with an average of 25.7 yr). Data Collection and Analysis: Reported data consists of age, pure-tone average (PTA), most comfortable level (MCL), background noise level (BNL), ANL (i.e., MCL − BNL), AEP latencies, AEP amplitudes, and WMC. Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient was calculated between the collected variables to investigate associations. A principal component analysis (PCA) with Varimax rotation was conducted on the collected variables to explore underlying factors and estimate interactions between the tested variables. Subjects were also pooled into two groups depending on their results on the WMC test, one group with a score lower than the average and one with a score higher than the average. Comparisons between these two groups were made using the Mann-Whitney U-test with Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons. Results: A negative association was found between ANL and WMC but not between AEP and ANL or WMC. Furthermore, ANL is derived from MCL and BNL, and a significant positive association was found between BNL and WMC. However, no significant associations were seen between AEP latencies and amplitudes and the demographic variables, MCL, and BNL. The PCA identified two underlying factors: One that contained MCL, BNL, ANL, and WMC and another that contained latency for wave Na and amplitudes for waves V and Na-Pa. Using the variables in the first factor, the findings were further explored by pooling the subjects into two groups according to their WMC (WMClow and WMChigh). It was found that the WMClow had significantly poorer BNL than the WMChigh. Conclusions: The findings suggest that there is a strong relationship between BNL and WMC, while the association between MCL, ANL, and WMC seems less clear-cut.Keywords
This publication has 19 references indexed in Scilit:
- Development and analysis of an International Speech Test Signal (ISTS)International Journal of Audiology, 2010
- The role of working memory capacity in auditory distraction: A reviewNoise and Health, 2010
- When cognition kicks in: Working memory and speech understanding in noiseNoise and Health, 2010
- The Signal‐Cognition interface: Interactions between degraded auditory signals and cognitive processesScandinavian Journal of Psychology, 2009
- Cognition and hearing aidsScandinavian Journal of Psychology, 2009
- The emergence of Cognitive Hearing ScienceScandinavian Journal of Psychology, 2009
- Measuring cognitive factors in speech comprehension: The value of using the Text Reception Threshold test as a visual equivalent of the SRT testScandinavian Journal of Psychology, 2009
- The effect of extending high-frequency bandwidth on the Acceptable Noise Level (ANL) of hearing-impaired listenersInternational Journal of Audiology, 2009
- Are individual differences in speech reception related to individual differences in cognitive ability? A survey of twenty experimental studies with normal and hearing-impaired adultsInternational Journal of Audiology, 2008
- Cognitive processes in children's reading and attention: The role of working memory, divided attention, and response inhibitionBritish Journal of Psychology, 2006