Cited by 49Hearing Loss and RehabilitationCognitive Abilities and TestingNeurobiology of Language and Bilingualism

Working Memory Training and Speech in Noise Comprehension in Older Adults

Open access
Wayne, Rachel V., Hamilton, Cheryl, Jones Huyck, Julia, Johnsrude, Ingrid S.·2016·Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience

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.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3389/fnagi.2016.00049

Cites

94 of 94 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • No transfer effects were observed in 3 out of 8 studies, and only nearest transfer effects as measured with digit span forward and/or backward were observed by three other studies.

    “Critically, no transfer effects were observed in 3 out of 8 studies [72–74], and only nearest transfer effects as measured with digit span forward and/or backward were observed by three other studies [19, 75, 76].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wayne, R. V., Hamilton, C., Jones Huyck, J., & Johnsrude, I. S.
Affiliations
  • Queen's University (CA)
  • Western University (CA)
Corresponding author
Wayne, Rachel V.
Venue
Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience
Published
2016-03-22
Volume
8
Pages
49-49
ISSN
1663-4365 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2333839922
Cited by
49
References
94
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 1
FWCI
3.99
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • Scholarship@Western (Western University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
  • Canadian Institutes of Health Research
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Hearing Loss and Rehabilitation
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
Keywords
working memory training, speech perception in noise, older adults, Cogmed, transfer of training, near transfer, far transfer, age-related hearing loss, semantic context, sentence intelligibility, reading span test, visual episodic memory, executive function

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review