title: Some factors underlying individual differences in speech recognition on PRESTO: a first report.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Previous studies investigating speech recognition in adverse listening conditions have found extensive variability among individual listeners. However, little is currently known about the core underlying factors that influence speech recognition abilities.
  
  
  OBJECTIVE
  To investigate sensory, perceptual, and neurocognitive differences between good and poor listeners on the Perceptually Robust English Sentence Test Open-set (PRESTO), a new high-variability sentence recognition test under adverse listening conditions.
  
  
  METHODS
  Participants who fell in the upper quartile (HiPRESTO listeners) or lower quartile (LoPRESTO listeners) on key word recognition on sentences from PRESTO in multitalker babble completed a battery of behavioral tasks and self-report questionnaires designed to investigate real-world hearing difficulties, indexical processing skills, and neurocognitive abilities.
  
  
  METHODS
  Young, normal-hearing adults (N = 40) from the Indiana University community participated in the current study.
  
  
  METHODS
  Participants' assessment of their own real-world hearing difficulties was measured with a self-report questionnaire on situational hearing and hearing health history. Indexical processing skills were assessed using a talker discrimination task, a gender discrimination task, and a forced-choice regional dialect categorization task. Neurocognitive abilities were measured with the Auditory Digit Span Forward (verbal short-term memory) and Digit Span Backward (verbal working memory) tests, the Stroop Color and Word Test (attention/inhibition), the WordFam word familiarity test (vocabulary size), the Behavioral Rating Inventory of Executive Function-Adult Version (BRIEF-A) self-report questionnaire on executive function, and two performance subtests of the Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence (WASI) Performance Intelligence Quotient (IQ; nonverbal intelligence). Scores on self-report questionnaires and behavioral tasks were tallied and analyzed by listener group (HiPRESTO and LoPRESTO).
  
  
  RESULTS
  The extreme groups did not differ overall on self-reported hearing difficulties in real-world listening environments. However, an item-by-item analysis of questions revealed that LoPRESTO listeners reported significantly greater difficulty understanding speakers in a public place. HiPRESTO listeners were significantly more accurate than LoPRESTO listeners at gender discrimination and regional dialect categorization, but they did not differ on talker discrimination accuracy or response time, or gender discrimination response time. HiPRESTO listeners also had longer forward and backward digit spans, higher word familiarity ratings on the WordFam test, and lower (better) scores for three individual items on the BRIEF-A questionnaire related to cognitive load. The two groups did not differ on the Stroop Color and Word Test or either of the WASI performance IQ subtests.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  HiPRESTO listeners and LoPRESTO listeners differed in indexical processing abilities, short-term and working memory capacity, vocabulary size, and some domains of executive functioning. These findings suggest that individual differences in the ability to encode and maintain highly detailed episodic information in speech may underlie the variability observed in speech recognition performance in adverse listening conditions using high-variability PRESTO sentences in multitalker babble.
authors.affiliation: Department of Linguistics, Indiana University, Bloomington.
authors.forename: Terrin N
authors.initials: TN
authors.lastname: Tamati
authors.forename: Jaimie L
authors.initials: JL
authors.lastname: Gilbert
authors.forename: David B
authors.initials: DB
authors.lastname: Pisoni
mesh_terms: D000161:Acoustic Stimulation / Q000379:methods; D000328:Adult; D001288:Attention / Q000502:physiology; D002648:Child; D003071:Cognition / Q000502:physiology*; D056344:Executive Function / Q000502:physiology; D005260:Female; D006311:Hearing Disorders / Q000503:physiopathology; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008570:Memory, Short-Term / Q000502:physiology; D010470:Perceptual Masking / Q000502:physiology*; D011930:Reaction Time / Q000502:physiology; D057566:Self Report; D059629:Signal-To-Noise Ratio; D013060:Speech / Q000502:physiology*; D013063:Speech Discrimination Tests / Q000379:methods / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D013067:Speech Perception / Q000502:physiology*; D057190:Stroop Test / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D014825:Vocabulary; D014888:Wechsler Scales / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D055815:Young Adult
references.citation: J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2004 Apr;47(2):421-36
references.pmid: 15157141
references.citation: J Acoust Soc Am. 1999 Oct;106(4 Pt 1):2074-85
references.pmid: 10530030
references.citation: J Acoust Soc Am. 1976 Mar;59(3):675-8
references.pmid: 1254794
references.citation: Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl. 2000 Dec;185:92-3
references.pmid: 11141023
references.citation: J Acoust Soc Am. 1969 Mar;45(3):694-703
references.pmid: 5776931
references.citation: Percept Psychophys. 1995 Oct;57(7):989-1001
references.pmid: 8532502
references.citation: J Am Acad Audiol. 2007 Jul-Aug;18(7):590-603
references.pmid: 18236646
references.citation: Speech Commun. 1985 Aug;4(1-3):75-95
references.pmid: 23226910
references.citation: Ear Hear. 2011 Feb;32(1 Suppl):60S-74S
references.pmid: 21832890
references.citation: Audiol Neurootol. 2008;13(3):193-205
references.pmid: 18212519
references.citation: J Acoust Soc Am. 2003 Sep;114(3):1600-10
references.pmid: 14514213
references.citation: Int J Audiol. 2008 Nov;47 Suppl 2:S53-71
references.pmid: 19012113
references.citation: Lang Speech. 2008;51(Pt 3):175-98
references.pmid: 19626923
references.citation: Ment Lex. 2010 Nov 1;5(1):1-21
references.pmid: 21423865
references.citation: Percept Psychophys. 1998 Apr;60(3):355-76
references.pmid: 9599989
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1980 Feb;6(1):110-25
references.pmid: 6444985
references.citation: J Assoc Res Otolaryngol. 2001 Sep;2(3):189-98
references.pmid: 11669393
references.citation: Trends Amplif. 2006 Mar;10(1):29-59
references.pmid: 16528429
references.citation: Front Biosci. 2000 Jan 01;5:D202-12
references.pmid: 10702369
references.citation: J Acoust Soc Am. 1995 Jul;98(1):125-34
references.pmid: 7608391
references.citation: Psychol Sci. 1994 Jan 1;5(1):42-46
references.pmid: 21526138
references.citation: Psychol Bull. 1988 Sep;104(2):163-91
references.pmid: 3054993
references.citation: J Acoust Soc Am. 2001 Nov;110(5 Pt 1):2527-38
references.pmid: 11757942
references.citation: Percept Psychophys. 1990 Apr;47(4):379-90
references.pmid: 2345691
references.citation: Psychol Methods. 2005 Jun;10(2):178-92
references.pmid: 15998176
references.citation: J Am Acad Audiol. 2008 Jul-Aug;19(7):533-41; quiz 579-80
references.pmid: 19248729
references.citation: J Acoust Soc Am. 1990 Dec;88(6):2611-24
references.pmid: 2283434
references.citation: J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2005 Oct;48(5):1033-47
references.pmid: 16411794
references.citation: Speech Commun. 1996 Dec 1;20(3):255-272
references.pmid: 21461127
references.citation: Psychol Rev. 1998 Apr;105(2):251-79
references.pmid: 9577239
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Gen. 1993 Sep;122(3):316-30
references.pmid: 8371087
references.citation: Atten Percept Psychophys. 2009 Aug;71(6):1360-74
references.pmid: 19633351
references.citation: J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2005 Feb;48(1):204-23
references.pmid: 15938065
references.citation: J Am Acad Audiol. 2013 Jan;24(1):26-36
references.pmid: 23231814
references.citation: Psychol Rev. 1998 Jan;105(1):158-73
references.pmid: 9450375
references.citation: Psychol Aging. 2005 Jun;20(2):261-71
references.pmid: 16029090
references.citation: J Acoust Soc Am. 2007 Jan;121(1):519-26
references.pmid: 17297805
references.citation: Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl. 2002 May;189:113-8
references.pmid: 12018337
references.citation: J Phon. 2004 Jan 1;32(1):111-140
references.pmid: 21451736
references.citation: Ear Hear. 1994 Apr;15(2):138-60
references.pmid: 8020647
references.citation: J Speech Hear Res. 1966 Jun;9(2):273-7
references.pmid: 5925532
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1993 Mar;19(2):309-28
references.pmid: 8454963
references.citation: J Acoust Soc Am. 2010 Jul;128(1):270-9
references.pmid: 20649222
references.citation: J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2007 Aug;50(4):844-56
references.pmid: 17675590
references.citation: Cognition. 2010 Mar;114(3):356-71
references.pmid: 19922909
references.citation: Ear Hear. 2003 Feb;24(1 Suppl):106S-20S
references.pmid: 12612485
references.citation: Cochlear Implants Int. 2011 May;12 Suppl 1:S89-91
references.pmid: 21756484
references.citation: J Acoust Soc Am. 2009 Jan;125(1):447-56
references.pmid: 19173430
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1989 Jul;15(4):676-84
references.pmid: 2526857
references.citation: Brain Lang. 1988 Sep;35(1):86-104
references.pmid: 3179704
references.citation: Scand J Psychol. 2009 Oct;50(5):371-84
references.pmid: 19778385
references.citation: Scand J Psychol. 2009 Oct;50(5):385-93
references.pmid: 19778386
references.citation: Psychol Bull. 1997 Jan;121(1):65-94
references.pmid: 9000892
references.citation: Volta Rev. 2000;102(4):259-280
references.pmid: 21666765
references.citation: J Commun Disord. 2003 May-Jun;36(3):189-208
references.pmid: 12742667
references.citation: J Speech Lang Hear Res. 1997 Apr;40(2):423-31
references.pmid: 9130210
references.citation: Psychon Bull Rev. 2005 Oct;12(5):769-86
references.pmid: 16523997
references.citation: J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2005 Feb;48(1):61-78
references.pmid: 15938060
references.citation: Ear Hear. 2000 Feb;21(1):70-8
references.pmid: 10708075
references.citation: J Speech Hear Res. 1993 Oct;36(5):1083-96
references.pmid: 8246474
references.citation: J Speech Hear Res. 1983 Sep;26(3):451-8
references.pmid: 6645470
references.citation: J Acoust Soc Am. 1989 Jan;85(1):365-78
references.pmid: 2921419