Influence of subcortical auditory processing and cognitive measures on cocktail party listening in younger and older adults

Relationships Between Auditory Processing and Cognitive Abilities in Adults: A Systematic Review

PURPOSE

The contributions from the central auditory and cognitive systems play a major role in communication. Understanding the relationship between auditory and cognitive abilities has implications for auditory rehabilitation for clinical patients. The purpose of this systematic review is to address the question, "In adults, what is the relationship between central auditory processing abilities and cognitive abilities?"

METHOD

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were followed to identify, screen, and determine eligibility for articles that addressed the research question of interest. Medical librarians and subject matter experts assisted in search strategy, keyword review, and structuring the systematic review process. To be included, articles needed to have an auditory measure (either behavioral or electrophysiologic), a cognitive measure that assessed individual ability, and the measures needed to be compared to one another.

RESULTS

Following two rounds of identification and screening, 126 articles were included for full analysis. Central auditory processing (CAP) measures were grouped into categories (behavioral: speech in noise, altered speech, temporal processing, binaural processing; electrophysiologic: mismatch negativity, P50, N200, P200, and P300). The most common CAP measures were sentence recognition in speech-shaped noise and the P300. Cognitive abilities were grouped into constructs, and the most common construct was working memory. The findings were mixed, encompassing both significant and nonsignificant relationships; therefore, the results do not conclusively establish a direct link between CAP and cognitive abilities. Nonetheless, several consistent relationships emerged across different domains. Distorted or noisy speech was related to working memory or processing speed. Auditory temporal order tasks showed significant relationships with working memory, fluid intelligence, or multidomain cognitive measures. For electrophysiology, relationships were observed between some cortical evoked potentials and working memory or executive/inhibitory processes. Significant results were consistent with the hypothesis that assessments of CAP and cognitive processing would be positively correlated.

CONCLUSIONS

Results from this systematic review summarize relationships between CAP and cognitive processing, but also underscore the complexity of these constructs, the importance of study design, and the need to select an appropriate measure. The relationship between auditory and cognitive abilities is complex but can provide informative context when creating clinical management plans. This review supports a need to develop guidelines and training for audiologists who wish to consider individual central auditory and cognitive abilities in patient care.

SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL

https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.24855174.

Clinical Utility of the Standardized Word Recognition Score

OBJECTIVES

An unexpectedly low word recognition (WR) score may be taken as evidence of increased risk for retrocochlear tumor. We sought to develop evidence for or against using a standardized WR (sWR) score in detecting retrocochlear tumors. The sWR is a z score expressing the difference between an observed WR score and a Speech Intelligibility Index-based predicted WR score. We retrospectively compared the sensitivity and specificity of pure-tone asymmetry-based logistic regression models that incorporated either the sWR or the raw WR scores in detecting tumor cases. Two pure-tone asymmetry calculations were used: the 4-frequency pure-tone asymmetry (AAO) calculation of the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery and a 6-frequency pure-tone asymmetry (6-FPTA) calculation previously optimized to detect retrocochlear tumors. We hypothesized that a regression model incorporating the 6-FPTA calculation and the sWR would more accurately detect retrocochlear tumors.

DESIGN

Retrospective data from all patients seen in the audiology clinic at Mayo Clinic in Florida in 2016 were reviewed. Cases with retrocochlear tumors were compared with a reference group with noise- or age-related hearing loss or idiopathic sensorineural hearing loss. Two pure-tone-based logistic regression models were created (6-FPTA and AAO). Into these base models, WR variables (WR, sWR, WR asymmetry [WRΔ], and sWR asymmetry [sWRΔ]) were added. Tumor detection performance for each regression model was compared twice: first, using all qualifying cases (61 tumor cases; 2332 reference group cases), and second, using a data set filtered to exclude hearing asymmetries greater than would be expected from noise-related or age-related hearing loss (25 tumor cases; 2208 reference group cases). The area under the curve and the DeLong test for significant receiver operating curve differences were used as outcome measures.

RESULTS

The 6-FPTA model significantly outperformed the AAO model-with or without the addition of WR or WRΔ variables. Including sWR into the AAO base regression model significantly improved disease detection performance. Including sWR into the 6-FPTA model significantly improved disease detection performance when large hearing asymmetries were excluded. In the data set that included large pure-tone asymmetries, area under the curve values for the 6-FPTA + sWR and AAO + sWR models were not significantly better than the base 6-FPTA model.

CONCLUSIONS

The results favor the superiority of the sWR computational method in identifying reduced WR scores in retrocochlear cases. The utility would be greatest where undetected tumor cases are embedded in a population heavily representing age- or noise-related hearing loss. The results also demonstrate the superiority of the 6-FPTA model in identifying tumor cases. The 2 computational methods may be combined (ie, the 6-FPTA + sWR model) into an automated tool for detecting retrocochlear disease in audiology and community otolaryngology clinics. The 4-frequency AAO-based regression model was the weakest detection method considered. Including raw WR scores into the model did not improve performance, whereas including sWR into the model did improve tumor detection performance. This further supports the contribution of the sWR computational method for recognizing low WR scores in retrocochlear disease cases.

Self-reported hearing difficulties and speech-in-noise test performance - what can we find behind a "normal" audiogram?

PURPOSE

To investigate complaints of difficulty understanding speech in the presence of noise in subjects without hearing loss and their performance on a speech-in-noise test.

METHODS

Thirty-nine subjects aged 18 to 59 years and 11 months were divided into four groups according to their decade of life. They underwent audiometry, tympanometry, auditory processing tests, the Mini-Mental State Examination, a self-report on auditory perception combined with the Amsterdam Inventory for Auditory Disability and Handicap (Pt-AIADH), and a sentence test in silence and in noise.

RESULTS

All groups scored high on the Pt-AIADH domains, with the highest average score obtained for the noise intelligibility domain. There were differences between G18 vs. G40, G18 vs. G50, and G30 vs. G50 for auditory self-perception in noise intelligibility, and differences between the youngest and all other groups on the speech-in-noise test in particular, with a lower signal-to-noise ratio for older adults. We also identified a moderate and significant correlation between intelligibility in noise and the speech-in-noise test.

CONCLUSION

Normal hearers of all age groups complained of intelligibility in noise. We found that the higher an individual's auditory difficulty in this domain, the worse their performance on the speech-in-noise test; this is especially true for middle-aged adults.

Behavioral assessment of auditory processing in adulthood: population of interest and tests - a systematic review

PURPOSE

To identify the behavioral tests used to assess auditory processing throughout adulthood, focusing on the characteristics of the target population as an interest group.

RESEARCH STRATEGIES

PubMed, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Scielo, databases were searched with descriptors: "auditory perception" or "auditory perception disorders" or "auditory processing" or "central auditory processing" or "auditory processing disorders" or "central auditory processing disorders" with adults OR aging.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies with humans included, the adult population from 18 to 64 years old, who performed at least one behavioral test to assess auditory processing in the absence of hearing loss.

DATA ANALYSIS

Data extraction was performed independently, using a protocol developed by the authors that included different topics, mainly the behavioral auditory tests performed and the results found.

RESULTS

Of the 867 records identified, 24 contained the information needed to answer the survey questions.

CONCLUSION

Almost all studies were conducted verify performance in one or two auditory processing tests. The target target population was heterogeneous, with the most frequent persons with diabetes, stuttering, auditory processing disorder, and noise exposure. There is little information regarding benchmarks for testing in the respective age groups.