Is there an influence of perceptual or cognitive impairment on complex sentence processing in hearing aid users?
Journal
PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2023
2023
Historique:
received:
06
05
2023
accepted:
06
09
2023
medline:
28
9
2023
pubmed:
28
9
2023
entrez:
28
9
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Hearing-impaired listeners often have difficulty understanding complex sentences. It is not clear if perceptual or cognitive deficits have more impact on reduced language processing abilities, and how a hearing aid might compensate for that. In a prospective study with 5 hearing aid users and 5 normal hearing, age-matched participants, processing of complex sentences was investigated. Audiometric and working memory tests were performed. Subject- and object-initial sentences from the Oldenburg Corpus of Linguistically and audiologically controlled Sentences (OLACS) were presented to the participants during recording of an electroencephalogram (EEG). The perceptual difference between object and subject leading sentences does not lead to processing changes whereas the ambiguity in object leading sentences with feminine or neuter articles evokes a P600 potential. For hearing aid users, this P600 has a longer latency compared to normal hearing subjects. The EEG is a suitable method for investigating differences in complex speech processing for hearing aid users. Longer P600 latencies indicate higher cognitive effort for processing complex sentences in hearing aid users.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Hearing-impaired listeners often have difficulty understanding complex sentences. It is not clear if perceptual or cognitive deficits have more impact on reduced language processing abilities, and how a hearing aid might compensate for that.
METHODS
METHODS
In a prospective study with 5 hearing aid users and 5 normal hearing, age-matched participants, processing of complex sentences was investigated. Audiometric and working memory tests were performed. Subject- and object-initial sentences from the Oldenburg Corpus of Linguistically and audiologically controlled Sentences (OLACS) were presented to the participants during recording of an electroencephalogram (EEG).
RESULTS
RESULTS
The perceptual difference between object and subject leading sentences does not lead to processing changes whereas the ambiguity in object leading sentences with feminine or neuter articles evokes a P600 potential. For hearing aid users, this P600 has a longer latency compared to normal hearing subjects.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
The EEG is a suitable method for investigating differences in complex speech processing for hearing aid users. Longer P600 latencies indicate higher cognitive effort for processing complex sentences in hearing aid users.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37768903
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0291832
pii: PONE-D-23-11940
pmc: PMC10538791
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0291832Informations de copyright
Copyright: © 2023 Wagner et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
Références
Int J Audiol. 2003 Jul;42 Suppl 1:S68-76
pubmed: 12918612
Nature. 1998 Sep 3;395(6697):71-3
pubmed: 9738499
J Acoust Soc Am. 2013 Oct;134(4):3039-56
pubmed: 24116439
Psychol Aging. 2010 Sep;25(3):730-5
pubmed: 20853977
PLoS One. 2014 Jun 20;9(6):e100186
pubmed: 24950184
Neuropsychologia. 2000;38(11):1531-49
pubmed: 10906378
Brain Res. 2012 Mar 29;1446:127-43
pubmed: 22361114
Psychophysiology. 2020 Jul;57(7):e13351
pubmed: 30802979
Sci Rep. 2021 Mar 16;11(1):5994
pubmed: 33727628
Memory. 2010 May;18(4):394-412
pubmed: 20408039
Ear Hear. 2017 May/Jun;38(3):267-281
pubmed: 28234670
Int J Audiol. 2008 Nov;47 Suppl 2:S99-105
pubmed: 19012117
J Neurolinguistics. 2013 Jan;26(1):
pubmed: 24227906
Front Psychol. 2017 Aug 15;8:1308
pubmed: 28861009
J Am Geriatr Soc. 2005 Apr;53(4):695-9
pubmed: 15817019
Trends Cogn Sci. 2002 Feb 1;6(2):78-84
pubmed: 15866191
Physiol Rev. 2011 Oct;91(4):1357-92
pubmed: 22013214
Int J Audiol. 2003 Jul;42 Suppl 2:2S26-32
pubmed: 12918626
Trends Neurosci. 2020 Oct;43(10):810-821
pubmed: 32826080
J Acoust Soc Am. 1978 Feb;63(2):533-49
pubmed: 670550
Trends Hear. 2015 Apr 24;19:
pubmed: 25910503
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1994 Jul;20(4):786-803
pubmed: 8064247