Children's Speech Perception in Noise: Evidence for Dissociation from Language and Working Memory

• Published in: Journal of speech, language, and hearing research language, and hearing research, 2018-05, Vol.61 (5), p.1294-1305
• Main Authors: Magimairaj, Beula M, Nagaraj, Naveen K, Benafield, Natalie J
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Acoustics; Attention; Auditory Perception; Child; Child Language; Childhood speech perception; Children; Children & youth; Cognition & reasoning; Cognitive ability; Correlation; Educational Environment; Elementary School Students; Female; Hearing; Hearing loss; Humans; Individual differences; Intelligence; Intelligence Quotient; Interference (Learning); Language; Language disorders; Language Skills; Listening; Listening Comprehension; Longitudinal Studies; Male; Memory; Memory, Short-Term; Noise; Noise (Sound); Nonverbal Ability; Older people; Otolaryngology; Pattern Recognition, Physiological; Phonology; Preadolescents; Principal components analysis; Psychological aspects; Psychology, Child; Recall; Recall (Psychology); Sentences; Short Term Memory; Speech; Speech Communication; Speech Perception; Tests
• ISSN: 1092-4388; 1558-9102
• DOI: 10.1044/2018_JSLHR-H-17-0312

Purpose: We examined the association between speech perception in noise (SPIN), language abilities, and working memory (WM) capacity in school-age children. Existing studies supporting the Ease of Language Understanding (ELU) model suggest that WM capacity plays a significant role in adverse listening situations. Method: Eighty-three children between the ages of 7 to 11 years participated. The sample represented a continuum of individual differences in attention, memory, and language abilities. All children had normal-range hearing and normal-range nonverbal IQ. Children completed the Bamford-Kowal-Bench Speech-in-Noise Test (BKB-SIN; Etymotic Research, 2005), a selective auditory attention task, and multiple measures of language and WM. Results: Partial correlations (controlling for age) showed significant positive associations among attention, memory, and language measures. However, BKB-SIN did not correlate significantly with any of the other measures. Principal component analysis revealed a distinct WM factor and a distinct language factor. BKB-SIN loaded robustly as a distinct 3rd factor with minimal secondary loading from sentence recall and short-term memory. Nonverbal IQ loaded as a 4th factor. Conclusions: Results did not support an association between SPIN and WM capacity in children. However, in this study, a single SPIN measure was used. Future studies using multiple SPIN measures are warranted. Evidence from the current study supports the use of BKB-SIN as clinical measure of speech perception ability because it was not influenced by variation in children's language and memory abilities. More large-scale studies in school-age children are needed to replicate the proposed role played by WM in adverse listening situations.