The Impacts of Two Adaptive Auditory–Cognitive Training Paradigms on Listening to Competing Talkers

Charlie Fisher; Michael A. Johns; Lien P. Decruy; Regina C. Calloway; Jason L. Dunlap; Jonathan Z. Simon; Samira Anderson; Stefanie E. Kuchinsky

doi:10.1055/s-0045-1811532

Seminars in Hearing, Table of Contents

Semin Hear 2025; 46(02): 141-160
DOI: 10.1055/s-0045-1811532

Review Article

The Impacts of Two Adaptive Auditory–Cognitive Training Paradigms on Listening to Competing Talkers

Authors

Charlie Fisher

¹Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland
Michael A. Johns

²Institute for Systems Research, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland
Lien P. Decruy

²Institute for Systems Research, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland
Regina C. Calloway

²Institute for Systems Research, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland
Jason L. Dunlap

³Department of Hearing and Speech Sciences, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland
Jonathan Z. Simon

¹Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland

²Institute for Systems Research, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland

⁴Department of Biology, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland
Samira Anderson

³Department of Hearing and Speech Sciences, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland
Stefanie E. Kuchinsky

³Department of Hearing and Speech Sciences, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland

⁵National Military Audiology and Speech Pathology Center, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, Maryland

Abstract

Speech intelligibility among competing talkers becomes more difficult with age, even for older adults with clinically normal hearing. Recently, there has been a growing interest in the implementation of auditory–cognitive training to improve speech-in-noise recognition performance, particularly for older adults. In this study, we implemented two levels of cognitive demand in an adaptive auditory–cognitive training program that used a competing-speaker paradigm. Older adults with normal to near-normal hearing thresholds were assessed on training performance (at the individual and group level), self-reported training strategies, and far-transfer learning in a speech-perception-in-noise task. Training performance analysis revealed that some older adults, particularly those in the more demanding training, performed poorly during the auditory–cognitive training itself. Some participants in this group reported disengagement, potentially due to the low level of those individuals' self-reported satisfaction with engaging in challenging tasks in daily life. Despite these challenges, however, both groups generally improved in the far-transfer learning assessment, though there was variation among participants. Our results suggest that too-high levels of cognitive demand within the auditory–cognitive training may limit some aspects of training outcomes for speech perception in noise; however, higher cognitive demand may be beneficial for those who enjoy challenging tasks.

Keywords

auditory training - older adults - competing speakers - cognitive load - individual differences

Full Text

References

References
1 Hannula S, Bloigu R, Majamaa K, Sorri M, Mäki-Torkko E. Self-reported hearing problems among older adults: prevalence and comparison to measured hearing impairment. J Am Acad Audiol 2011; 22 (08) 550-559
2 Anderson S, White-Schwoch T, Parbery-Clark A, Kraus N. A dynamic auditory-cognitive system supports speech-in-noise perception in older adults. Hear Res 2013; 300: 18-32
3 CHABA. Speech understanding and aging. J Acoust Soc Am 1988; 83 (03) 859-895
4 Lee JY. Aging and speech understanding. J Audiol Otol 2015; 19 (01) 7-13
5 Lin FR, Yaffe K, Xia J. et al. Health ABC Study Group. Hearing loss and cognitive decline in older adults. JAMA Intern Med 2013; 173 (04) 293-299
6 Kwak C, Han W. Age-related difficulty of listening effort in elderly. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2021; 18 (16) 8845
7 Dubno JR, Dirks DD, Morgan DE. Effects of age and mild hearing loss on speech recognition in noise. J Acoust Soc Am 1984; 76 (01) 87-96
8 Füllgrabe C, Moore BCJ, Stone MA. Age-group differences in speech identification despite matched audiometrically normal hearing: contributions from auditory temporal processing and cognition. Front Aging Neurosci 2015; 6: 347
9 Kuchinsky SE, Vaden KI. Aging, hearing loss, and listening effort: imaging studies of the aging listener. In: Helfer KS, Bartlett EL, Popper AN, Fay RR. eds. Aging and Hearing: Causes and Consequences. Springer International Publishing; 2020: 231-256
10 Stropahl M, Besser J, Launer S. Auditory training supports auditory rehabilitation: a state-of-the-art review. Ear Hear 2020; 41 (04) 697-704
11 Pang J, Beach EF, Gilliver M, Yeend I. Adults who report difficulty hearing speech in noise: an exploration of experiences, impacts and coping strategies. Int J Audiol 2019; 58 (12) 851-860
12 Schoof T, Rosen S. The role of auditory and cognitive factors in understanding speech in noise by normal-hearing older listeners. Front Aging Neurosci 2014; 6: 307
13 Koelewijn T, Zekveld AA, Festen JM, Kramer SE. Pupil dilation uncovers extra listening effort in the presence of a single-talker masker. Ear Hear 2012; 33 (02) 291-300
14 Koelewijn T, Zekveld AA, Festen JM, Kramer SE. The influence of informational masking on speech perception and pupil response in adults with hearing impairment. J Acoust Soc Am 2014; 135 (03) 1596-1606
15 Stenbäck V, Marsja E, Hällgren M, Lyxell B, Larsby B. Informational masking and listening effort in speech recognition in noise: the role of working memory capacity and inhibitory control in older adults with and without hearing impairment. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2022; 65 (11) 4417-4428
16 Davidson A, Souza P. Relationships between auditory processing and cognitive abilities in adults: a systematic review. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2024; 67 (01) 296-345
17 Rönnberg J, Lunner T, Zekveld A. et al. The Ease of Language Understanding (ELU) model: theoretical, empirical, and clinical advances. Front Syst Neurosci 2013; 7: 31
18 Henshaw H, Heinrich A, Tittle A, Ferguson M. Cogmed training does not generalize to real-world benefits for adult hearing aid users: results of a blinded, active-controlled randomized trial. Ear Hear 2022; 43 (03) 741-763
19 Wayne RV, Hamilton C, Jones Huyck J, Johnsrude IS. Working memory training and speech in noise comprehension in older adults. Front Aging Neurosci 2016; 8: 49
20 O'Brien JL, Lister JJ, Fausto BA, Clifton GK, Edwards JD. Cognitive training enhances auditory attention efficiency in older adults. Front Aging Neurosci 2017; 9: 322
21 Anderson S, White-Schwoch T, Parbery-Clark A, Kraus N. Reversal of age-related neural timing delays with training. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2013; 110 (11) 4357-4362
22 Ferguson MA, Henshaw H, Clark DPA, Moore DR. Benefits of phoneme discrimination training in a randomized controlled trial of 50- to 74-year-olds with mild hearing loss. Ear Hear 2014; 35 (04) e110-e121
23 Ferguson M, Henshaw H. How does auditory training work? Joined-up thinking and listening. Semin Hear 2015; 36 (04) 237-249
24 Pichora-Fuller MK, Levitt H. Speech comprehension training and auditory and cognitive processing in older adults. Am J Audiol 2012; 21 (02) 351-357
25 Bolia RS, Nelson WT, Ericson MA, Simpson BD. A speech corpus for multitalker communications research. J Acoust Soc Am 2000; 107 (02) 1065-1066
26 Van Wilderode M, Van Humbeeck N, Krampe RT, van Wieringen A. Enhancing speech perception in noise through home-based competing talker training. Ear Hear 2025; 46 (04) 856-870
27 Anderson S, White-Schwoch T, Choi HJ, Kraus N. Training changes processing of speech cues in older adults with hearing loss. Front Syst Neurosci 2013; 7: 97-97
28 Karawani H, Bitan T, Attias J, Banai K. Auditory perceptual learning in adults with and without age-related hearing loss. Front Psychol 2016; 6: 2066
29 Song JH, Skoe E, Banai K, Kraus N. Training to improve hearing speech in noise: biological mechanisms. Cereb Cortex 2012; 22 (05) 1180-1190
30 Smith SL, Saunders GH, Chisolm TH, Frederick M, Bailey BA. Examination of individual differences in outcomes from a randomized controlled clinical trial comparing formal and informal individual auditory training programs. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2016; 59 (04) 876-886
31 Laffere A, Dick F, Tierney A. Effects of auditory selective attention on neural phase: individual differences and short-term training. Neuroimage 2020; 213: 116717
32 Henshaw H, McCormack A, Ferguson MA. Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation is associated with computer-based auditory training uptake, engagement, and adherence for people with hearing loss. Front Psychol 2015; 6: 1067
33 Lawrence BJ, Jayakody DMP, Henshaw H. et al. Auditory and cognitive training for cognition in adults with hearing loss: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Trends Hear 2018; 22: 2331216518792096
34 Sweetow RW, Sabes JH. Auditory training and challenges associated with participation and compliance. J Am Acad Audiol 2010; 21 (09) 586-593
35 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
36 Herrmann B, Johnsrude IS. A model of listening engagement (MoLE). Hear Res 2020; 397: 108016
37 Zekveld AA, Kramer SE, Rönnberg J, Rudner M. In a concurrent memory and auditory perception task, the pupil dilation response is more sensitive to memory load than to auditory stimulus characteristics. Ear Hear 2019; 40 (02) 272-286
38 Zhang Y, Lehmann A, Deroche M. Disentangling listening effort and memory load beyond behavioural evidence: pupillary response to listening effort during a concurrent memory task. PLoS One 2021; 16 (03) e0233251
39 Klingberg T. Training and plasticity of working memory. Trends Cogn Sci 2010; 14 (07) 317-324
40 Bieber RE, Tinnemore AR, Yeni-Komshian G, Gordon-Salant S. Younger and older adults show non-linear, stimulus-dependent performance during early stages of auditory training for non-native English. J Acoust Soc Am 2021; 149 (06) 4348-4365
41 Killion MC, Niquette PA, Gudmundsen GI, Revit LJ, Banerjee S. Development of a quick speech-in-noise test for measuring signal-to-noise ratio loss in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am 2004; 116 (4 Pt 1): 2395-2405
42 Jaeggi SM, Buschkuehl M, Shah P, Jonides J. The role of individual differences in cognitive training and transfer. Mem Cognit 2014; 42 (03) 464-480
43 Cacioppo JT, Petty RE, Kao CF. The efficient assessment of need for cognition. J Pers Assess 1984; 48 (03) 306-307
44 Dweck CS. Self-Theories: Their Role in Motivation, Personality, and Development. 1st ed. . Taylor & Francis Group; 1999
45 Guay F, Vallerand RJ, Blanchard C. On the assessment of situational intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: the Situational Motivation Scale (SIMS). Motiv Emot 2000; 24 (03) 175-213
46 Francart T, van Wieringen A, Wouters J. APEX 3: a multi-purpose test platform for auditory psychophysical experiments. J Neurosci Methods 2008; 172 (02) 283-293
47 Heinrich A, Henshaw H, Ferguson M. Practice Listening and Understanding Speech (PLUS): Two novel auditory-cognitive training programs for hearing-impaired listeners. Presented at: 2019 Aging & Speech Communication Conference; 2019; Sand Key Beach, FL
48 R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2024. Accessed at: https://www.R-project.org/
49 Kassambara A, Mundt F. . factoextra: Extract and Visualize the Results of Multivariate Data Analyses. Published online 2020. Accessed at: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=factoextra
50 Muggeo VMR. segmented: an R package to fit regression models with broken-line relationships. R News 2008; 8 (01) 20-25
51 Knudson C. . glmm: Generalized Linear Mixed Models via Monte Carlo Likelihood Approximation. 2024. Accessed at: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=glmm
52 Lüdecke D, Ben-Shachar MS, Patil I, Waggoner P, Makowski D. performance: an R package for assessment, comparison and testing of statistical models. J Open Source Softw 2021; 6 (60) 3139
53 Voeten CC. . buildmer: Stepwise Elimination and Term Reordering for Mixed-Effects Regression. 2023. Accessed at: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=buildmer
54 Paivio A, Walsh M, Bons T. Concreteness effects on memory: when and why?. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 1994; 20 (05) 1196-1204