4.3 Article

Individual differences in language and working memory affect children's speech recognition in noise

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AUDIOLOGY
Volume 56, Issue 5, Pages 306-315

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/14992027.2016.1266703

Keywords

Behavioural measures; paediatric; speech perception; psychoacoustics; hearing science; noise

Funding

  1. NIH-NIDCD [R03 DC012635, R01 DC013591, P30 DC004662, T32 DC000013]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: We examined how cognitive and linguistic skills affect speech recognition in noise for children with normal hearing. Children with better working memory and language abilities were expected to have better speech recognition in noise than peers with poorer skills in these domains. Design: As part of a prospective, cross-sectional study, children with normal hearing completed speech recognition in noise for three types of stimuli: (1) monosyllabic words, (2) syntactically correct but semantically anomalous sentences and (3) semantically and syntactically anomalous word sequences. Measures of vocabulary, syntax and working memory were used to predict individual differences in speech recognition in noise. Study sample: Ninety-six children with normal hearing, who were between 5 and 12 years of age. Results: Higher working memory was associated with better speech recognition in noise for all three stimulus types. Higher vocabulary abilities were associated with better recognition in noise for sentences and word sequences, but not for words. Conclusions: Working memory and language both influence children's speech recognition in noise, but the relationships vary across types of stimuli. These findings suggest that clinical assessment of speech recognition is likely to reflect underlying cognitive and linguistic abilities, in addition to a child's auditory skills, consistent with the Ease of Language Understanding 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