4.5 Article

Aging and cortical mechanisms of speech perception in noise

Journal

NEUROPSYCHOLOGIA
Volume 47, Issue 3, Pages 693-703

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2008.11.032

Keywords

Speech-in-noise; Elderly; fMRI; Cognitive aging; Sensory aging; Hearing

Funding

  1. National Institutes of Health [R01DC008333, R21DC007468, R03HD051827]
  2. Northwestern University School of Communication
  3. Alumnae of Northwestern Association
  4. Northwestern University Undergraduate Research Council

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Spoken language processing in noisy environments, a hallmark of the human brain, is subject to age-related decline, even when peripheral hearing might be intact. The present study examines the cortical cerebral hemodynamics (measured by fMRI) associated with such processing in the aging brain. Younger and older subjects identified single words in quiet and in two multi-talker babble noise conditions (SNR 20 and -5 dB). Behaviorally, older and younger subjects did not show significant differences in the first two conditions but older adults performed less accurately in the SNR -5 condition. The fMRI results showed reduced activation in the auditory cortex but an increase in working memory and attention-related cortical areas (prefrontal and precuneus regions) in older subjects, especially in the SNR -5 condition. Increased cortical activities in general cognitive regions were positively correlated with behavioral performance in older listeners, suggestive of a compensatory strategy. Furthermore, inter-regional correlation revealed that while younger subjects showed a more streamlined cortical network of auditory regions in response to spoken word processing in noise, older subjects showed a more diffused network involving frontal and ventral brain regions. These results are consistent with the decline-compensation hypothesis, suggestive of its applicability to the auditory domain. (C) 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available