4.3 Review

Cognitive hearing science and ease of language understanding

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AUDIOLOGY
Volume 58, Issue 5, Pages 247-261

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/14992027.2018.1551631

Keywords

Cognition; hearing impairment; age-related hearing loss; speech in noise; working memory; ease of language understanding; effort; dementia

Funding

  1. Linnaeus Centre HEAD excellence centre grant from the Swedish Research Council [349-2007-8654]
  2. FORTE [2012-1693]
  3. Swedish Research Council [2017-06092]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: The current update of the Ease of Language Understanding (ELU) model evaluates the predictive and postdictive aspects of speech understanding and communication.Design: The aspects scrutinised concern: (1) Signal distortion and working memory capacity (WMC), (2) WMC and early attention mechanisms, (3) WMC and use of phonological and semantic information, (4) hearing loss, WMC and long-term memory (LTM), (5) WMC and effort, and (6) the ELU model and sign language.Study Samples: Relevant literature based on own or others' data was used.Results: Expectations 1-4 are supported whereas 5-6 are constrained by conceptual issues and empirical data. Further strands of research were addressed, focussing on WMC and contextual use, and on WMC deployment in relation to hearing status. A wider discussion of task demands, concerning, for example, inference-making and priming, is also introduced and related to the overarching ELU functions of prediction and postdiction. Finally, some new concepts and models that have been inspired by the ELU-framework are presented and discussed.Conclusions: The ELU model has been productive in generating empirical predictions/expectations, the majority of which have been confirmed. Nevertheless, new insights and boundary conditions need to be experimentally tested to further shape the model.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available