Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26733899›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in psychology2015

Working Memory and Hearing Aid Processing: Literature Findings, Future Directions, and Clinical Applications.

Pamela Souza, Kathryn Arehart, Tobias Neher

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in psychology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

33 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Does the Speech Cue Profile Affect Response to Amplitude Envelope Distortion?Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR · 2021
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Benefit of hearing aid use in the elderly: the impact of age, cognition and hearing impairment.Acta otorhinolaryngologica Italica : organo ufficiale della Societa italiana di otorinolaringologia e chirurgia cervico-facciale · 2019
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Listener Factors Associated with Individual Susceptibility to Reverberation.Journal of the American Academy of Audiology · 2018
    Article
  18. Toward a taxonomic model of attention in effortful listening.Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience · 2017
    Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Pamela SouzaCommunication Sciences and Disorders, Knowles Hearing Center, Northwestern University, Evanston IL, USA.
Kathryn ArehartSpeech, Language and Hearing Sciences, University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder CO, USA.
Tobias NeherMedizinische Physik and Cluster of Excellence Hearing4all, Carl von Ossietzky University of Oldenburg Oldenburg, Germany.

Funding

Acoustic and Perceptual Effects of WDRC AmplificationR01DC006014 · NIDCD · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI SOUZA, PAMELA E. · 2005 to 2020
$3.9M
Characterizing Variability in Hearing Aid Outcomes Among Older AdultsR01DC012289 · NIDCD · NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY · PI SOUZA, PAMELA E. · 2012 to 2021
$3.7M
NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC006014NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC012289
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Working memory-the ability to process and store information-has been identified as an important aspect of speech perception in difficult listening environments. Working memory can be envisioned as a limited-capacity system which is engaged when an input signal cannot be readily matched to a stored representation or template. This "mismatch" is expected to occur more frequently when the signal is degraded. Because working memory capacity varies among individuals, those with smaller capacity are expected to demonstrate poorer speech understanding when speech is degraded, such as in background noise. However, it is less clear whether (and how) working memory should influence practical decisions, such as hearing treatment. Here, we consider the relationship between working memory capacity and response to specific hearing aid processing strategies. Three types of signal processing are considered, each of which will alter the acoustic signal: fast-acting wide-dynamic range compression, which smooths the amplitude envelope of the input signal; digital noise reduction, which may inadvertently remove speech signal components as it suppresses noise; and frequency compression, which alters the relationship between spectral peaks. For fast-acting wide-dynamic range compression, a growing body of data suggests that individuals with smaller working memory capacity may be more susceptible to such signal alterations, and may receive greater amplification benefit with "low alteration" processing. While the evidence for a relationship between wide-dynamic range compression and working memory appears robust, the effects of working memory on perceptual response to other forms of hearing aid signal processing are less clear cut. We conclude our review with a discussion of the opportunities (and challenges) in translating information on individual working memory into clinical treatment, including clinically feasible measures of working memory.

Indexed as

digital noise reductionfrequency compressionhearing aidreading spanwide-dynamic range compressionworking memory capacity

Identifiers

PMID26733899
PMCPMC4679849

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.