4.5 Article

Individual differences in speech-in-noise perception parallel neural speech processing and attention in preschoolers

Journal

HEARING RESEARCH
Volume 344, Issue -, Pages 148-157

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.heares.2016.11.007

Keywords

Speech-in-noise perception; Auditory development; Electrophysiology; FFR; Auditory processing; cABR

Funding

  1. NIH [R01-HD069414]
  2. Knowles Hearing Center

Ask authors/readers for more resources

From bustling classrooms to unruly lundhrooms, school settings are noisy. To learn effectively in the unwelcome company of numerous distractions, children must clearly perceive speech in noise. In older children and adults, speech-in-noise perception is supported by sensory and cognitive processes, but the correlates underlying this critical listening skill in young children (3-5 year olds) remain undetermined. Employing a longitudinal design (two evaluations separated by 12 months), we followed a cohort of 59 preschoolers, ages 3.0-4.9, assessing word-in-noise perception, cognitive abilities (intelligence, short-term memory, attention), and neural responses to speech. Results reveal changes in word-in-noise perception parallel changes in processing of the fundamental frequency (FO), an acoustic cue known for playing a role central to speaker identification and auditory scene analysis. Four unique developmental trajectories (speech-in-noise perception groups) confirm this relationship, in that improvements and declines in word-in-noise perception couple with enhancements and diminishments of FO encoding, respectively. Improvements in word-in-noise perception also pair with gains in attention. Word-in-noise perception does not relate to strength of neural harmonic representation or short-term memory. These findings reinforce previously-reported roles of FO and attention in hearing speech in noise in older children and adults, and extend this relationship to preschool children. (C) 2016 Elsevier B.V. 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