Login Register Cart 0
Generic placeholder image

Current Aging Science

Editor-in-Chief

ISSN (Print): 1874-6098
ISSN (Online): 1874-6128

Back
Journal Home About Journal Editorial Board Journal Insight Current Issue Volumes/Issues
Subscribe
Research Article

Cognitive Function Prediction of Performance During Dual-Tasks Across Adults With and Without Hearing Loss

Author(s): Jennine Harvey*, Scott Seeman and Deborah von Hapsburg

Volume 11, Issue 3, 2018

Page: [155 - 164] Pages: 10

DOI: 10.2174/1874609812666181213103209

Price: $65

Abstract

Background: Dual-task procedures are commonly implemented to examine cognitive load and listening effort as individual differences in cognition often determine successful listening. However, which methods are most efficacious is unclear. Specifically, standardized, targeted assessment procedures for establishing cognitive function, and age-related changes that might account for changes in dual-task performance have yet to be established. Additional data are needed across aging populations, including middle-aged adults and older adults to establish the trend of performance changes throughout the aging process. Investigations of the relationship between cognitive function and dual-task performance may better inform clinical decisions.

Objective: The purpose of this study was to investigate if cognitive function predicts dual-task performance across adults with and without hearing loss.

Methods: Participants were divided into two groups based on age. Group 1: 14 listeners (Female = 11), 30-50 years old, with normal hearing. Group 2: 12 listeners (Female = 9), 60-80 years old, with normal hearing to near-normal hearing, including typical age-related hearing loss. Participants were administered four of the Woodcock-Johnson III cognitive subtests and standard hearing threshold procedures. All participants were tested in each of three experimental conditions, including two perceptual-cognitive dual-tasks: (1) Auditory word recognition + visual processing, (2) Auditory working memory (sentence) + visual processing in noise, and (3) Auditory working memory (word) + visual processing.

Results: Results indicated that cognitive function does predict dual-task performance regardless of age and hearing function.

Conclusion: Cognitive function may predict dual-task performance during speech-in-noise tasks. Further research investigating the predictive value of related cognitive subtests to listening effort is warranted.

Keywords: Cognitive function, cognitive spare capacity, aging, dual-task, noise, hearing loss.

« Previous Next »
Graphical Abstract

[1]
Broadbent DE, Gregory M. Some confirmatory results on age differences in memory for simultaneous stimulation. Br J Psychol 1965; 56(1): 77-80.
[2]
Gosselin PA, Gagné JP. Older adults expend more listening effort than younger adults recognizing speech in noise. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2011; 54(6): 944-58.
[3]
Gosselin P, Gagné JP. Use of dual-task paradigm to measure listening effort. Canadian J Speech Lang Pathol Audiol 2010 Spr; 34(1): 43-51
[4]
Hornsby BWY. The effects of hearing aid use on listening effort and mental fatigue associated with sustained speech processing demands. Ear Hear 2013; 34(5): 523-34.
[5]
Kahneman D. Attention and effort. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall 1973.
[6]
Sarampalis A, Kalluri S, Edwards B, et al. Objective measures of listening effort: Effects of background noise and noise reduction. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2009; 52(5): 1230-40.
[7]
Somberg BL, Salthouse TA. Divided attention abilities in young and old adults. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 1982; 8(5): 651-63.
[8]
Tun PA, McCoy S, Wingfield A. Aging, hearing acuity, and the attentional costs of effortful listening. Psychol Aging 2009; 24(3): 761-6.
[9]
Gagne JP, Jana B, Ulrike L. Behavioral assessment of listening effort using a dual-task paradigm. Trends Hear 2017; 21: 2331216516687287.
[10]
Akeryod MA. Are individual differences in speech reception related to individual differences in cognitive ability? A survey of twenty experimental studies with normal and hearing-impaired adults. Int J Audiol 2008; 47(2): S53-71.
[11]
Edwards B. A model of auditory-cognitive processing and relevance to clinical applicability. Ear Hear 2016; 37(1): 85S-91S.
[12]
Lemke U, Besser J. Cognitive load and listening effort: Concepts and age-related considerations. Ear Hear 2016; 31(1): 77S-84S.
[13]
Phillips NA. The implications of cognitive aging for listening and the Framework for Understanding Effortful listening (FUEL). Ear Hear 2016; 37: 44S-51S.
[14]
Pichora-Fuller MK, Kramer SE, Eckert MA, et al. Hearing impairment and cognitive energy: The Framework for Understanding Effortful Listening (FUEL). Ear Hear 2016; 37(1): 5S-27S.
[15]
Rudner M. Cognitive spare capacity as an index of listening effort. Ear Hear 2016; 37(1): 69S-76S.
[16]
Tremblay KL, Backer KC. Listening and learning: Cognitive contributions to the rehabilitation of older adults with and without audiometrically defined hearing loss. Ear Hear 2016; 37: 155S-62S.
[17]
Wu Y, Stangl E, Zhang X, et al. Psychometric functions of dual-task paradigms for measuring listening effort. Ear Hear 2016; 37(6): 660-70.
[18]
Picou EM, Ricketts TA. The effect of changing the secondary task in dual-task paradigms for measuring listening effort. Ear Hear 2014; 35(6): 611-22.
[19]
Desjardins JL, Doherty KA. Age-related changes in listening effort for various types of masker noises. Ear Hear 2013; 34: 261-72.
[20]
Pichora-Fuller MK, Schneider BA, Daneman M. How young and old adults listen to and remember speech in noise. J Acoust Soc Am 1995; 97(1): 593-608.
[21]
Picou EM, Gordon J, Ricketts TA. The effects of noise and reverberation on listening effort in adults with normal hearing. Ear Hear 2016; 37(1): 1-13.
[22]
Wu Y, Aksan N, Rizzo M, et al. Measuring listening effort: Driving simulator versus simple dual-task paradigm. Ear Hear 2014; 35(6): 623-32.
[23]
Desjardins JL, Doherty KA. The effect of hearing aid noise reduction on listening effort in hearing-impaired adults. Ear Hear 2014; 35(6): 600-10.
[24]
Humes LE, Lee JH, Coughlin MP. Auditory measures of selective and divided attention in young and older adults using single-talker competition. J Acoust Soc Am 2006; 120: 2926-37.
[25]
Degeest S, Keppler H, Corthals P. The effect of age on listening effort. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2015; 58: 1592-600.
[26]
Smith SL, Pichora-Fuller MK, Alexander G. Development of the word auditory recognition and recall measure: A working memory test for use in rehabilitative audiology. Ear Hear 2016; 37(6): e360.
[27]
Picou EM, Ricketts TA, Hornsby BWY. Visual cues and listening effort: Individual variability. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2011; 54: 1416-30.
[28]
Woodcock RW, Mather N, McGrew KS. Woodcock-Johnson III tests of cognitive abilities examiner’s manual. Itasca, IL: Riverside 2001.
[29]
ISO International Standards Organization. ISO 7029: 2000, The statistical distribution of hearing thresholds as a function of age, 2000
[30]
Oldfield RC. The assessment and analysis of handedness: The Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia 1971; 9: 97-113.
[31]
Levitt H. Transformed Up-Down Methods in Psychoacoustics. J Acoust Soc Am 1971; 49(2B): 467.
[32]
Bilger RC, Nuetzel JM, Rabinowitz WM, et al. Standardization of a test of speech perception in noise. J Speech Hear Res 1984; 27(1): 32-48.
[33]
Kalikow DN, Stevens KN, Elliott LL. Development of a test of speech intelligibility in noise using sentence materials with controlled word predictability. J Acoust Soc Am 1977; 61: 1337-51.
[34]
Hirsh IJ. The Measurement of Hearing. New York, NY: McGraw Hill 1952.
[35]
Cedrus Corporation. (2008). SuperLab (Version 4.5) [Computer Software]. United States.
[36]
Daneman M, Carpenter PA. Individual differences in working memory and reading. J Verbal Learn Verbal Behav 1980; 19: 450-66.
[37]
McAuliffe MJ, Wilding PJ, Rickard NA, et al. Effect of speaker age on speech recognition and perceived listening effort in older adults with hearing loss. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2012; 55: 839-47.
[38]
Koelwijn T, Zekveld A, Festen J, et al. Pupil dilation uncovers extra listening effort in the presence of a single-talker masker. Ear Hear 2012; 2: 291-300.
[39]
Arlingern S, Lunner T, Lyxell B, et al. The emergence of cognitive hearing science. Scand J Psychol 2009; 50(5): 371.
[40]
Humes LE, Young LA. Sensory-cognitive interactions in older adults. Ear Hear 2016; 37: 152S-61S.
[41]
Ansado J, Marsolais Y, Methqal I, et al. The adaptive aging brain: Evidence from the preservation of communication abilities with age. Eur J Neurosci 2013; 37(12): 1887-95.
[42]
European Journal of Neuroscience. 2013 Jun [cited 2017 Jul 1]; 37(12): 1887-95.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ejn.12252]
[43]
Townsend J, Adamo M, Haist F. Changing channels: An fMRI study of aging and cross-modal attention shifts. Neuroimage 2006; 31: 1682-92.
[44]
Schrank FA, Wendling BJ. (2009) Educational interventions and accommodations related to the Woodcock-Johnson® III Tests of Cognitive Abilities and the Woodcock-Johnson III Diagnostic Supplement to the Tests of Cognitive Abilities (Woodcock-Johnson III Assessment Service Bulletin No 10). Rolling Meadows, IL: Riverside Publishing 2009 Available from:.http://www.hmhco.com/~/media/sites/home/hmh-assessments/clinical/woodcock-johnson/pdf/wjiii/wjiii_asb10.pdf?la=
[45]
Lin FR, Metter EJ, O’Brien RJ, et al. Hearing loss and incident dementia. Arch Neurol 2011; 68(2): 214-20.
[46]
Wei J, Hu Y, Zhang L, et al. Haring impairment, mild cognitive impairment, and dementia: A meta-analsis of cohort studies. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord 2017; 7: 440-52.
[47]
Thomson RS, Auduong P, Miller AT, et al. Hearing loss as a risk factor for dementia: A systematic review. Laryngoscope Investig Otolaryngol 2017; 2: 69-79.
[48]
Zheng Y, Fan S, Liao W, et al. Hearing impairment and risk of Alzheimer’s disease: A metaanalysis of prospective cohort studies. Neurol Sci 2017; 38: 233-9.
[49]
Zekveld AA, Kramer SE. Cognitive processing load across a wide range of listening conditions: Insights from pupillometry. Psychophysiology 2014; 51(3): 277-84.
[50]
Lin F, Albert M. Hearing loss and Dementia-Who’s listening? Aging Ment Health 2014; 18(6): 671-3.

Rights & Permissions Print Cite
Article Metrics
93
2
© 2024 Bentham Science Publishers | Privacy Policy