J Am Acad Audiol
DOI: 10.1055/a-1896-5129
Research Article

Auditory Short-Term Memory Evaluation in Noise in Musicians

Büşra Nur Eser
1   Department of Audiology, Graduate School of Health Sciences, Istanbul Medipol University, Istanbul, Turkey
Mustafa Bülent Şerbetçioğlu
1   Department of Audiology, Graduate School of Health Sciences, Istanbul Medipol University, Istanbul, Turkey
› Author Affiliations


Background Working memory, a short-term memory component, is a multicomponent system that manages attention and short-term memory in speech perception in challenging listening conditions. These challenging conditions cause listening effort that can be objectively evaluated by pupillometry. Studies show that auditory working memory is more developed in musicians for complex auditory tasks.

Purpose This study aims to compare the listening effort and short-term memory in noise between musicians and nonmusicians.

Research Design An experimental research design was adopted for the study.

Study Sample The study was conducted on 22 musicians and 20 nonmusicians between the ages of 20 and 45.

Data Collection and Analysis Participants' effort analysis was measured with pupillometry; performance analysis was measured with short-term memory score by listening to the 15 word lists of Verbal Memory Processes Test. Participants are tested under three conditions: quiet, +15 signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), and +5 SNR.

Results While nonmusicians showed significantly higher short-term memory score (STMS) than musicians in the quiet condition, musicians' STMS were significantly higher in both noise conditions (+15 SNR and +5 SNR). The nonmusician's percentage of pupil growth averages were higher than the musicians for three conditions.

Conclusion As a result, musicians had better memory performance in noise and less effort in the listening task according to lower pupil growth. This study objectively evaluated the differences between participants' listening efforts by pupillometry. It is also observed that the SNR and music training affect memory performance.


Any mention of a product, service, or procedure in the Journal of the American Academy of Audiology does not constitute an endorsement of the product, service, or procedure by the American Academy of Audiology.

Publication History

Received: 22 October 2021

Accepted: 05 July 2022

Accepted Manuscript online:
11 July 2022

Article published online:
24 February 2023

© 2023. American Academy of Audiology. This article is published by Thieme.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

  • References

  • 1 Escobar J, Mussoi BS, Silberer AB. The effect of musical training and working memory in adverse listening situations. Ear Hear 2020; 41 (02) 278-288
  • 2 Cowan N. What are the differences between long-term, short-term, and working memory?. Prog Brain Res 2008; 169: 323-338
  • 3 Rönnberg J, Rudner M, Foo C, Lunner T. Cognition counts: a working memory system for ease of language understanding (ELU). Int J Audiol 2008; 47 (Suppl. 02) S99-S105
  • 4 Baddeley A. Working memory: looking back and looking forward. Nat Rev Neurosci 2003; 4 (10) 829-839
  • 5 Marrone N, Alt M, DeDe G, Olson S, Shehorn J. Effects of steady-state noise on verbal working memory in young adults. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2015; 58 (06) 1793-1804
  • 6 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 (Suppl. 01) 5S-27S
  • 7 Wendt D, Hietkamp RK, Lunner T. Impact of noise and noise reduction on processing effort: a pupillometry study. Ear Hear 2017; 38 (06) 690-700
  • 8 Winn MB, Wendt D, Koelewijn T, Kuchinsky SE. Best practices and advice for using pupillometry to measure listening effort: an introduction for those who want to get started. Trends Hear 2018; 22: 2331216518800869
  • 9 Zekveld AA, Kramer SE, Festen JM. Cognitive load during speech perception in noise: the influence of age, hearing loss, and cognition on the pupil response. Ear Hear 2011; 32 (04) 498-510
  • 10 Zatorre RJ, Chen JL, Penhune VB. When the brain plays music: auditory-motor interactions in music perception and production. Nat Rev Neurosci 2007; 8 (07) 547-558
  • 11 Pantev C, Okamoto H, Teismann H. Music-induced cortical plasticity and lateral inhibition in the human auditory cortex as foundations for tonal tinnitus treatment. Front Syst Neurosci 2012; 6: 50
  • 12 Kraus N, Strait DL, Parbery-Clark A. Cognitive factors shape brain networks for auditory skills: spotlight on auditory working memory. Ann N Y Acad Sci 2012; 1252: 100-107
  • 13 Oktem O. A verbal test of memory processes: a preliminary study. Archives of Neuropsychiatry. 1992; 29 (04) 196-206 (Turkish)
  • 14 Moore DR, Whiston H, Lough M. et al. FreeHear: a new sound-field speech-in-babble hearing assessment tool. Trends Hear 2019; 23: 2331216519872378
  • 15 ANSI – American National Standards Institute. American National Standard Methods for the calculation of the speech intelligibility index. New York, NY: American National Standards Institute; 1997
  • 16 Eckert MA, Cute SL, Vaden Jr KI, Kuchinsky SE, Dubno JR. Auditory cortex signs of age-related hearing loss. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 2012; 13 (05) 703-713
  • 17 Piquado T, Isaacowitz D, Wingfield A. Pupillometry as a measure of cognitive effort in younger and older adults. Psychophysiology 2010; 47 (03) 560-569
  • 18 Winn MB, Edwards JR, Litovsky RY. The impact of auditory spectral resolution on listening effort revealed by pupil dilation. Ear Hear 2015; 36 (04) e153-e165
  • 19 Zekveld AA, Koelewijn T, Kramer SE. The pupil dilation response to auditory stimuli: current state of knowledge. Trends Hear 2018; 22: 2331216518777174
  • 20 Schellenberg EG, Peretz I. Music, language and cognition: unresolved issues. Trends Cogn Sci 2008; 12 (02) 45-46
  • 21 Talamini F, Altoè G, Carretti B, Grassi M. Musicians have better memory than nonmusicians: a meta-analysis. PLoS One 2017; 12 (10) e0186773 [published correction appears in PLoS One. 2018 Jan 19;13(1):e0191776]
  • 22 Rönnberg N, Rudner M, Lunner T, Stenfelt S. Memory performance on the Auditory Inference Span Test is independent of background noise type for young adults with normal hearing at high speech intelligibility. Front Psychol 2014; 5: 1490
  • 23 Ingvalson EM, Dhar S, Wong PC, Liu H. Working memory training to improve speech perception in noise across languages. J Acoust Soc Am 2015; 137 (06) 3477-3486
  • 24 George EM, Coch D. Music training and working memory: an ERP study. Neuropsychologia 2011; 49 (05) 1083-1094
  • 25 Yeend I, Beach EF, Sharma M, Dillon H. The effects of noise exposure and musical training on suprathreshold auditory processing and speech perception in noise. Hear Res 2017; 353: 224-236
  • 26 Parbery-Clark A, Skoe E, Lam C, Kraus N. Musician enhancement for speech-in-noise. Ear Hear 2009; 30 (06) 653-661
  • 27 Strait DL, Kraus N, Parbery-Clark A, Ashley R. Musical experience shapes top-down auditory mechanisms: evidence from masking and auditory attention performance. Hear Res 2010; 261 (1-2): 22-29
  • 28 Musacchia G, Sams M, Skoe E, Kraus N. Musicians have enhanced subcortical auditory and audiovisual processing of speech and music. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2007; 104 (40) 15894-15898