4.5 Article

Is Listening in Noise Worth It? The Neurobiology of Speech Recognition in Challenging Listening Conditions

Journal

EAR AND HEARING
Volume 37, Issue -, Pages 101S-110S

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/AUD.0000000000000300

Keywords

Adaptive control; Behavioral economics; Cingulo-opercular

Funding

  1. National Institutes of Health/National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders [P50 DC 000422]
  2. MUSC Center for Biomedical Imaging
  3. South Carolina Clinical and Translational Research (SCTR) Institute
  4. NIH/NCRR [UL1 RR029882]
  5. National Center for Research Resources, National Institutes of Health [C06 RR14516]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This review examines findings from functional neuroimaging studies of speech recognition in noise to provide a neural systems level explanation for the effort and fatigue that can be experienced during speech recognition in challenging listening conditions. Neuroimaging studies of speech recognition consistently demonstrate that challenging listening conditions engage neural systems that are used to monitor and optimize performance across a wide range of tasks. These systems appear to improve speech recognition in younger and older adults, but sustained engagement of these systems also appears to produce an experience of effort and fatigue that may affect the value of communication. When considered in the broader context of the neuroimaging and decision making literature, the speech recognition findings from functional imaging studies indicate that the expected value, or expected level of speech recognition given the difficulty of listening conditions, should be considered when measuring effort and fatigue. The authors propose that the behavioral economics or neuroeconomics of listening can provide a conceptual and experimental framework for understanding effort and fatigue that may have clinical significance.

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