↓ Skip to main content

Working Memory Training and Speech in Noise Comprehension in Older Adults

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
40 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
185 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Working Memory Training and Speech in Noise Comprehension in Older Adults
Published in
Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience, March 2016
DOI 10.3389/fnagi.2016.00049
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rachel V. Wayne, Cheryl Hamilton, Julia Jones Huyck, Ingrid S. Johnsrude

Abstract

Understanding speech in the presence of background sound can be challenging for older adults. Speech comprehension in noise appears to depend on working memory and executive-control processes (e.g., Heald and Nusbaum, 2014), and their augmentation through training may have rehabilitative potential for age-related hearing loss. We examined the efficacy of adaptive working-memory training (Cogmed; Klingberg et al., 2002) in 24 older adults, assessing generalization to other working-memory tasks (near-transfer) and to other cognitive domains (far-transfer) using a cognitive test battery, including the Reading Span test, sensitive to working memory (e.g., Daneman and Carpenter, 1980). We also assessed far transfer to speech-in-noise performance, including a closed-set sentence task (Kidd et al., 2008). To examine the effect of cognitive training on benefit obtained from semantic context, we also assessed transfer to open-set sentences; half were semantically coherent (high-context) and half were semantically anomalous (low-context). Subjects completed 25 sessions (0.5-1 h each; 5 sessions/week) of both adaptive working memory training and placebo training over 10 weeks in a crossover design. Subjects' scores on the adaptive working-memory training tasks improved as a result of training. However, training did not transfer to other working memory tasks, nor to tasks recruiting other cognitive domains. We did not observe any training-related improvement in speech-in-noise performance. Measures of working memory correlated with the intelligibility of low-context, but not high-context, sentences, suggesting that sentence context may reduce the load on working memory. The Reading Span test significantly correlated only with a test of visual episodic memory, suggesting that the Reading Span test is not a pure-test of working memory, as is commonly assumed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 185 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 2%
Australia 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Unknown 178 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 41 22%
Student > Master 24 13%
Researcher 23 12%
Student > Bachelor 14 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 10 5%
Other 37 20%
Unknown 36 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 44 24%
Neuroscience 24 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 15 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 7%
Engineering 10 5%
Other 31 17%
Unknown 48 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 April 2016.
All research outputs
#17,793,546
of 22,856,968 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience
#3,811
of 4,802 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#205,852
of 300,114 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience
#60
of 78 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,856,968 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,802 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.0. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 300,114 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 78 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.