PDF herunterladen
J Am Acad Audiol 2019; 30(02): 115-130
DOI: 10.3766/jaaa.17082
Articles
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Bilingualism and Speech Understanding in Noise: Auditory and Linguistic Factors

Erika Skoe
*   Department of Speech, Language, and Hearing Sciences, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT
†   Department of Psychological Sciences, Cognitive Sciences Program, Connecticut Institute for Brain and Cognitive Sciences, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT
‡   University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT
,
Kateryna Karayanidi
*   Department of Speech, Language, and Hearing Sciences, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT
‡   University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT
› Institutsangaben
Weitere Informationen

Publikationsverlauf

Publikationsdatum:
26. Mai 2020 (online)

   Lizenzen und Reprints

Abstract

Background:

Bilingual speakers often have difficulty understanding speech in noisy and acoustically degraded conditions.

Purpose:

The first aim was to examine the potential source(s) of the difficulties that English-proficient bilingual listeners experience when hearing English speech in noise. The second aim was to assess how bilingual listeners perform on a battery of central auditory processing tests.

Research Design:

A mixed design was used in this study.

Study Sample:

Normal-hearing college students (n = 24) participated in this study. The bilingual participants (n = 12) self-reported that they learned a second language before age 9 and the monolingual participants reported that they only knew American English. All participants considered themselves to be native speakers of American English.

Data Collection and Analysis:

Participants were administered the Revised Speech Perception in Noise (R-SPIN) test to assess whether bilingual listeners’ speech understanding in noise reflects auditory factors, linguistic factors, or a combination of the two. To minimize the influence of short-term memory and motor movements, only the final word of a sentence is repeated for this test. Sentence-final words were presented in two linguistic contexts: in the high-predictability condition, the final word can be deduced from the context created by the preceding words, and in the low-predictability condition, it cannot. The R-SPIN test was administered at two signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs) (0 and 3 dB). In addition, the participants were given a reading comprehension test to measure their ability to use context when linguistic stimuli are delivered to the visual, not auditory, modality. The central auditory test battery consisted of three tests: Competing Sentences, Dichotic Digits, and NU-6 Time-Compressed Speech with Reverberation. All test materials were given in American English.

Results:

The bilingual and monolingual groups performed similarly in the low-context condition of the R-SPIN test. However, in comparison to the age-matched monolingual group, the bilingual group did not derive the same level of benefit from contextual cues, as seen by a smaller improvement in performance between the low- and high-predictability R-SPIN conditions. The bilingual and monolingual groups showed a similar decrement in performance when the SNR dropped. In addition, bilingual individuals underperformed on the Competing Sentences test when instructed to attend to the left ear. However, the bilingual and monolingual groups performed equally well on the reading comprehension test, as well as on the Time-Compressed Speech with Reverberation and Dichotic Digits tests.

Conclusions:

We show that individuals who are exposed to two languages from an early age, and self-report as having a high level of proficiency in English, perform like their monolingual counterparts in acoustically degraded conditions where context is not facilitative, but they underperform in conditions where sentence-level linguistic context is facilitative to understanding. We conclude that deficits observed in noise are likely not due to a perceptual deficit or a lack of linguistic competence, but instead reflect a linguistic system that performs inefficiently in noise. In addition, we do not find evidence of an auditory processing weakness or advantage in our bilingual cohort; however, the use of speech materials to assess auditory processing is a confound.

Key Words

bilingual - speech in noise
 

  • REFERENCES

  • Anaya EM, Pisoni DB, Kronenberger WG. 2016; Long-term musical experience and auditory and visual perceptual abilities under adverse conditions. J Acoust Soc Am 140 (03) 2074-2081
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Bak TH, Vega-Mendoza M, Sorace A. 2014; Never too late? An advantage on tests of auditory attention extends to late bilinguals. Front Psychol 5: 485
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Bellis TJ, Billiet C, Ross J. 2011; The utility of visual analogs of central auditory tests in the differential diagnosis of (central) auditory processing disorder and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. J Am Acad Audiol 22 (08) 501-514
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Bialystok E. 2015; Bilingualism and the development of executive function: the role of attention. Child Dev Perspect 9 (02) 117-121
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Bialystok E, Craik FI, Green DW, Gollan TH. 2009; Bilingual minds. Psychol Sci Public Interest 10 (03) 89-129
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Bialystok E, Martin MM, Viswanathan M. 2005; Bilingualism across the lifespan: the rise and fall of inhibitory control. Int J Biling 9 (01) 103-119
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Bilger RC, Nuetzel JM, Rabinowitz WM, Rzeczkowski C. 1984; Standardization of a test of speech perception in noise. J Speech Hear Res 27 (01) 32-48
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Bradlow AR, Alexander JA. 2007; Semantic and phonetic enhancements for speech-in-noise recognition by native and non-native listeners. J Acoust Soc Am 121 (04) 2339-2349
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Costa A, Hernández M, Costa-Faidella J, Sebastián-Gallés N. 2009; On the bilingual advantage in conflict processing: now you see it, now you don’t. Cognition 113 (02) 135-149
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Cutler A, Weber A, Smits R, Cooper N. 2004; Patterns of English phoneme confusions by native and non-native listeners. J Acoust Soc Am 116 (06) 3668-3678
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Ganong 3rd WF. 1980; Phonetic categorization in auditory word perception. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 6 (01) 110-125
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • García-Sierra A, Ramírez-Esparza N, Silva-Pereyra J, Siard J, Champlin CA. 2012; Assessing the double phonemic representation in bilingual speakers of Spanish and English: an electrophysiological study. Brain Lang 121 (03) 194-205
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Gollan TH, Montoya RI, Cera C, Sandoval TC. 2008; More use almost always a means a smaller frequency effect: aging, bilingualism, and the weaker links hypothesis. J Mem Lang 58 (03) 787-814
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Green DW. 1998; Mental control of the bilingual lexico-semantic system. Biling Lang Cogn 1 (02) 67-81
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Gresele AD, Garcia MV, Torres EM, Santos SN, Costa MJ. 2013; Bilingualism and auditory processing abilities: performance of adults in dichotic listening tests. CoDAS 25 (06) 506-512
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Hart B, Risley TR. 1995. Meaningful Differences in the Everyday Experience of Young American Children. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing;
    Google Scholar
  • Hervais-Adelman A, Pefkou M, Golestani N. 2014; Bilingual speech-in-noise: neural bases of semantic context use in the native language. Brain Lang 132: 1-6
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Hugdahl K, Westerhausen R, Alho K, Medvedev S, Laine M, Hämäläinen H. 2009; Attention and cognitive control: unfolding the dichotic listening story. Scand J Psychol 50 (01) 11-22
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Kerkhofs R, Dijkstra T, Chwilla DJ, de Bruijn ER. 2006; Testing a model for bilingual semantic priming with interlingual homographs: RT and N400 effects. Brain Res 1068 (01) 170-183
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Killion MC, Niquette PA, Gudmundsen GI, Revit LJ, Banerjee S. 2004; 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 116 (4 Pt 1) 2395-2405 Erratum in: J Acoust Soc Am 2006;119(3):1888.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Krizman J, Bradlow AR, Lam SS-Y, Kraus N. 2016; How bilinguals listen in noise: linguistic and non-linguistic factors. Biling Lang Cogn 20: 842-843
    Google Scholar
  • Krizman J, Marian V, Shook A, Skoe E, Kraus N. 2012; Subcortical encoding of sound is enhanced in bilinguals and relates to executive function advantages. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 109 (20) 7877-7881
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Krizman J, Skoe E, Marian V, Kraus N. 2014; Bilingualism increases neural response consistency and attentional control: evidence for sensory and cognitive coupling. Brain Lang 128 (01) 34-40
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Krizman J, Slater J, Skoe E, Marian V, Kraus N. 2015; Neural processing of speech in children is influenced by extent of bilingual experience. Neurosci Lett 585: 48-53
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Lagacé J, Jutras B, Gagné J-P. 2010; Auditory processing disorder and speech perception problems in noise: finding the underlying origin. Am J Audiol 19 (01) 17-25
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Lagacé J, Jutras B, Giguère C, Gagné J-P. 2011; Speech perception in noise: exploring the effect of linguistic context in children with and without auditory processing disorder. Int J Audiol 50 (06) 385-395
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Luce PA, Pisoni DB. 1998; Recognizing spoken words: the neighborhood activation model. Ear Hear 19 (01) 1-36
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Lucks Mendel L, Widner H. 2016; Speech perception in noise for bilingual listeners with normal hearing. Int J Audiol 55 (02) 126-134
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Ludwig AA, Fuchs M, Kruse E, Uhlig B, Kotz SA, Rübsamen R. 2014; Auditory processing disorders with and without central auditory discrimination deficits. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 15 (03) 441-464
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Mägiste E. 1979; The competing language systems of the multilingual: A developmental study of decoding and encoding processes. J Verbal Learn Verbal Behav 18 (01) 79-89
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Magnuson JS, Dixon JA, Tanenhaus MK, Aslin RN. 2007; The dynamics of lexical competition during spoken word recognition. Cogn Sci 31 (01) 133-156
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Marian V, Blumenfeld HK, Boukrina OV. 2008; Sensitivity to phonological similarity within and across languages. J Psycholinguist Res 37 (03) 141-170
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Mayo LH, Florentine M, Buus S. 1997; Age of second-language acquisition and perception of speech in noise. J Speech Lang Hear Res 40 (03) 686-693
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • McClelland JL, Elman JL. 1986; The TRACE model of speech perception. Cognit Psychol 18 (01) 1-86
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Montagni I, Peru A. 2011; Effects of language and music learning on pitch and duration perception: an experimental investigation. Int J Psychol Behav Sci 1 (01) 33-40
    Google Scholar
  • Moore DR, Ferguson MA, Edmondson-Jones AM, Ratib S, Riley A. 2010; Nature of auditory processing disorder in children. Pediatrics 126 (02) e382-e390
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Musiek FE. 1983; Assessment of central auditory dysfunction: the dichotic digit test revisited. Ear Hear 4 (02) 79-83
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Nilsson M, Soli SD, Sullivan JA. 1994; Development of the hearing in noise test for the measurement of speech reception thresholds in quiet and in noise. J Acoust Soc Am 95 (02) 1085-1099
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Paap KR, Johnson HA, Sawi O. 2014; Are bilingual advantages dependent upon specific tasks or specific bilingual experiences?. J Cogn Psychol 26 (06) 615-639
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Paap KR, Johnson HA, Sawi O. 2015; Bilingual advantages in executive functioning either do not exist or are restricted to very specific and undetermined circumstances. Cortex 69: 265-278
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Parbery-Clark A, Skoe E, Lam C, Kraus N. 2009; Musician enhancement for speech-in-noise. Ear Hear 30 (06) 653-661
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Paulmann S, Elston-Güttler KE, Gunter TC, Kotz SA. 2006; Is bilingual lexical access influenced by language context?. Neuroreport 17 (07) 727-731
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Ramírez-Esparza N, García-Sierra A, Kuhl PK. 2014; Look who’s talking: speech style and social context in language input to infants are linked to concurrent and future speech development. Dev Sci 17 (06) 880-891
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Reetzke R, Lam BP-W, Xie Z, Sheng L, Chandrasekaran B. 2016; Effect of simultaneous bilingualism on speech intelligibility across different masker types, modalities, and signal-to-noise ratios in school-age children. PLoS One 11 (12) e0168048
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Rogers CL, Lister JJ, Febo DM, Besing JM, Abrams HB. 2006; Effects of bilingualism, noise, and reverberation on speech perception by listeners with normal hearing. Appl Psychol 27 (03) 465-485
    Google Scholar
  • Schmidtke J. 2016; The bilingual disadvantage in speech understanding in noise is likely a frequency effect related to reduced language exposure. Front Psychol 7: 678
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Shi L-F. 2010; Perception of acoustically degraded sentences in bilingual listeners who differ in age of English acquisition. J Speech Lang Hear Res 53 (04) 821-835
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Shi LF. 2011; How “proficient” is proficient? Subjective proficiency as a predictor of bilingual listeners’ recognition of English words. Am J Audiol 20 (01) 19-32
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Shi LF. 2012; Contribution of linguistic variables to bilingual listeners’ perception of degraded English sentences. J Speech Lang Hear Res 55 (01) 219-234
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Shi L-F, Azcona G, Buten L. 2015; Acceptance noise level: effects of the speech signal, babble, and listener language. J Speech Lang Hear Res 58 (02) 497-508
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Shi L-F, Farooq N. 2012; Bilingual listeners’ perception of temporally manipulated English passages. J Speech Lang Hear Res 55 (01) 125-138
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Skoe E, Burakiewicz E, Figueiredo M, Hardin M. 2017; Basic neural processing of sound in adults is influenced by bilingual experience. Neuroscience 349: 278-290
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Slater J, Kraus N. 2016; The role of rhythm in perceiving speech in noise: a comparison of percussionists, vocalists and non-musicians. Cogn Process 17 (01) 79-87
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Slater J, Skoe E, Strait DL, O’Connell S, Thompson E, Kraus N. 2015; Music training improves speech-in-noise perception: longitudinal evidence from a community-based music program. Behav Brain Res 291: 244-252
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Soveri A, Laine M, Hämäläinen H, Hugdahl K. 2011; Bilingual advantage in attentional control: evidence from the forced-attention dichotic listening paradigm. Biling Lang Cogn 14 (03) 371-378
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Sperling AJ, Lu ZL, Manis FR, Seidenberg MS. 2005; Deficits in perceptual noise exclusion in developmental dyslexia. Nat Neurosci 8 (07) 862-863
    Google Scholar
  • Studebaker GA. 1985; A “rationalized” arcsine transform. J Speech Hear Res 28 (03) 455-462
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Tabri D, Abou Chacra KM, Pring T. 2011; Speech perception in noise by monolingual, bilingual and trilingual listeners. Int J Lang Commun Disord 46 (04) 411-422
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Taft M. 1979; Recognition of affixed words and the word frequency effect. Mem Cognit 7 (04) 263-272
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Vihla M, Kiviniemi K, Salmelin R. 2002; Auditory cortical activation in Finnish and Swedish speaking Finns: a magnetoencephalographic study. Neurosci Lett 322 (03) 141-144
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • von Hapsburg D, Bahng J. 2006; Acceptance of background noise levels in bilingual (Korean–English) listeners. J Am Acad Audiol 17 (09) 649-658
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • von Hapsburg D, Peña ED. 2002; Understanding bilingualism and its impact on speech audiometry. J Speech Lang Hear Res 45 (01) 202-213
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Weber A, Cutler A. 2004; Lexical competition in non-native spoken-word recognition. J Mem Lang 50 (01) 1-25
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Willeford JA. 1978. Sentence tests of central auditory dysfunction. In: Katz J, Medwetsky L, Burkard R. Handbook of Clinical Audiology. Philadelphia, PA: Wolters Kluwer Health;
    Google Scholar
  • Wilson RH, Abrams HB, Pillion AL. 2003; A word-recognition task in multitalker babble using a descending presentation mode from 24 dB to 0 dB signal to babble. J Rehabil Res Dev 40 (04) 321-327
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Wilson RH, Preece JP, Salamon DL, Sperry JL, Bornstein SP. 1994; Effects of time compression and time compression plus reverberation on the intelligibility of Northwestern University Auditory Test No. 6. J Am Acad Audiol 5 (04) 269-277
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Woodcock R, Mather N, McGrew K. 2001. Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Cognitive Abilities Examiner’s Manual. Itasca, IL: Riverside;
    Google Scholar
  • Zekveld AA, Kramer SE. 2014; Cognitive processing load across a wide range of listening conditions: insights from pupillometry. Psychophysiology 51 (03) 277-284
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar