liu.seSearch for publications in DiVA
Change search
ReferencesLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
How Linguistic Closure and Verbal Working Memory Relate to Speech Recognition in Noise-A Review
VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Linköping University, The Swedish Institute for Disability Research. Linköping University, Department of Behavioural Sciences and Learning, Disability Research. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences. VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Show others and affiliations
2013 (English)In: Trends in Amplification, ISSN 1084-7138, Vol. 17, no 2, 75-93 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

The ability to recognize masked speech, commonly measured with a speech reception threshold (SRT) test, is associated with cognitive processing abilities. Two cognitive factors frequently assessed in speech recognition research are the capacity of working memory (WM), measured by means of a reading span (Rspan) or listening span (Lspan) test, and the ability to read masked text (linguistic closure), measured by the text reception threshold (TRT). The current article provides a review of recent hearing research that examined the relationship of TRT and WM span to SRTs in various maskers. Furthermore, modality differences in WM capacity assessed with the Rspan compared to the Lspan test were examined and related to speech recognition abilities in an experimental study with young adults with normal hearing (NH). Span scores were strongly associated with each other, but were higher in the auditory modality. The results of the reviewed studies suggest that TRT and WM span are related to each other, but differ in their relationships with SRT performance. In NH adults of middle age or older, both TRT and Rspan were associated with SRTs in speech maskers, whereas TRT better predicted speech recognition in fluctuating nonspeech maskers. The associations with SRTs in steady-state noise were inconclusive for both measures. WM span was positively related to benefit from contextual information in speech recognition, but better TRTs related to less interference from unrelated cues. Data for individuals with impaired hearing are limited, but larger WM span seems to give a general advantage in various listening situations.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Sage Publications, 2013. Vol. 17, no 2, 75-93 p.
Keyword [en]
text reception threshold, working memory span, speech recognition, linguistic closure
National Category
Medical and Health Sciences
URN: urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-102095DOI: 10.1177/1084713813495459ISI: 000324322200001OAI: diva2:668385

Funding Agencies|Foundation Het Heinsius-Houbolt Fonds||

Available from: 2013-11-29 Created: 2013-11-29 Last updated: 2013-12-18Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Other links

Publisher's full text

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Zekveld, Adriana
By organisation
The Swedish Institute for Disability ResearchDisability ResearchFaculty of Arts and Sciences
Medical and Health Sciences

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar
The number of downloads is the sum of all downloads of full texts. It may include eg previous versions that are now no longer available

Altmetric score

Total: 84 hits
ReferencesLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link