Evaluation of speech perception in noise in Kurd-Persian bilinguals
Background and Aim: In most everyday settings, speech is heard in the presence of competing sounds and speech perception in noise is affected by various factors, including cognitive factors. In this regard, bilingualism is a phenomenon that changes cognitive and behavioral processes as well as the nervous system. This study aimed to evaluate speech perception in noise and compare differences in Kurd-Persian bilinguals versus Persian monolinguals.
Methods: This descriptive-analytic study was performed on 92 students with normal hearing, 46 of whom were bilingual Kurd-Persian with a mean (SD) age of 22.73 (1.92) years, and 46 other Persian monolinguals with a mean (SD) age of 22.71 (2.28) years. They were examined by consonant-vowel in noise (CV in noise) test and quick speech in noise (Q-SIN) test. The obtained data were analyzed by SPSS 21.
Results: The comparison of the results showed differences in both tests between bilingual and monolingual subjects. In both groups, the reduction of signal-to-noise ratio led to lower scores, but decrease in CV in noise test in bilinguals was less than monolinguals (p < 0.001) and in the Q-SIN test, the drop in bilinguals’ score was more than monolinguals (p = 0.002).
Conclusion: Kurd-Persian bilinguals had a better performance in CV in noise test but had a worse performance in Q-SIN test than Persian monolinguals.
2. Jafari Z, Esmaili M, Toufan R, Aghamollaei M. Bilingual proficiency and cognitive reserve in Persian-English bilingual older adults. Aging Clin Exp Res. 2015;27(3):351-7. doi: 10.1007/s40520-014-0288-x
3. Soleymani M, Jarollahi F, Hosseini AF, Rahmani E. The effects of bilingualism on auditory memory using Persian version of dichotic auditory-verbal memory test. Aud Vestib Res. 2015;24(3):128-33.
4. Ziegler JC, Pech-Georgel C, George F, Alario FX, Lorenzi C. Deficits in speech perception predict language learning impairment. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005;102(39):14110-5. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0504446102
5. Kraus N, Anderson S. Bilingualism enhances neural speech encoding. Hear J. 2014;67(7):40. doi: 10.1097/01.HJ.0000452246.45569.6a
6. Krizman J, Marian V, Shook A, Skoe E, Kraus N. Subcortical encoding of sound is enhanced in bilinguals and relates to executive function advantages. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012;109(20):7877-81. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1201575109
7. Krizman J, Slater J, Skoe E, Marian V, Kraus N. Neural processing of speech in children is influenced by extent of bilingual experience. Neurosci Lett. 2015;585:48-53. doi: 10.1016/j.neulet.2014.11.011
8. Duncan KR, Aarts NL. A comparison of the HINT and Quick SIN tests. J Speech Lang Pathol Audiol. 2006;30(2):86-94.
9. Lucks Mendel L, Widner H. Speech perception in noise for bilingual listeners with normal hearing. Int J Audiol. 2016;55(2):126-34. doi: 10.3109/14992027.2015.1061710
10. Krizman J, Bradlow AR, Lam SS-Y, Kraus N. How bilinguals listen in noise: linguistic and non-linguistic factors. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition. 2017;20(4):834-43. doi: 10.1017/S1366728916000444
11. Onoda RM, Pereira LD, Guilherme A. Temporal processing and dichotic listening in bilingual and non-bilingual descendants. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol. 2006;72(6):737-46. doi: 10.1016/S1808-8694(15)31040-5 46
12. Negin E, Farahani S, Jalaie S, Barootian SS, Pourjavid A, Eatemadi M, et al. Effect of bilingualism on volume of corpus callosum. Aud Vestib Res. 2016;25(2):127-34.
13. Weiss D, Dempsey JJ. Performance of bilingual speakers on the English and Spanish versions of the hearing in noise test (HINT). J Am Acad Audiol. 2008;19(1):5-17.
14. Lotfi Y, Kargar S, Javanbakht M, Biglarian A. Development, validity and reliability of the Persian version of the consonant-vowel in white noise test. Journal of Rehabilitation Sciences and Research. 2016;3(2):29-34.
15. Shobha NH, Thomas TG, Subbarao K. Experimental evaluation of improvement in consonant recognition for the hearing-impaired listeners: role of consonant-vowel intensity ratio. J Theor Appl Inf Technol. 2009;7(2):101-9.
16. Killion MC, Niquette PA, Gudmundsen GI, Revit LJ, Banerjee S. Development of a quick speech-in-noise test for measuring signal-to-noise ratio loss in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. 2004;116(4):2395-405. doi: 10.1121/1.1784440
17. Shanks J, Shohet J. Tympanometry in clinical practice. In: Katz J, Medwetsky L, Burkard R, Hood L, editors. Handbook of clinical audiology. 6th ed. Baltimore: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2009. p. 157-88.
18. Gelfand SA. The acoustic reflex. In: Katz J, Medwetsky L, Burkard R, Hood L, editors. Handbook of clinical audiology. 6th ed. Baltimore: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2009. p. 189-221.
19. Anderson S, Kraus N. Sensory-cognitive interaction in the neural encoding of speech in noise: a review. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology. 2010;21(9):575-85. doi: 10.3766/jaaa.21.9.3
20. Zatorre RJ, Gandour JT. Neural specializations for speech and pitch: moving beyond the dichotomies. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2008;363(1493):1087-104. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2007.2161
21. Krizman J, Skoe E, Marian V, Kraus N. Bilingualism increases neural response consistency and attentional control: Evidence for sensory and cognitive coupling. Brain and language. 2014;128(1):34-40. doi: 10.1016/j.bandl.2013.11.006
22. Tabri D, Abou Chacra KM, Pring T. Speech perception in noise by monolingual, bilingual and trilingual listeners. Int J Lang Commun Disord. 2011;46(4):411-22. doi: 10.3109/13682822.2010.519372
23. Bidelman GM, Dexter L. Bilinguals at the "cocktail party": dissociable neural activity in auditory-linguistic brain regions reveals neurobiological basis for nonnative listeners' speech-in-noise recognition deficits. Brain Lang. 2015;143:32-41. doi: 10.1016/j.bandl.2015.02.002