The relationship between working memory capacity and temporal and dichotic auditory processing in teachers

  • Saeideh Mehrkian Department of Audiology, University of Social Welfare and Rehabilitation Sciences, Tehran, Iran https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8647-923X
  • Zahra Mozaffari Department of Audiology, University of Social Welfare and Rehabilitation Sciences, Tehran, Iran
  • Enayatollah Bakhshi Department of Biostatistics, University of Social Welfare and Rehabilitation Sciences, Tehran, Iran
Keywords: Noise; working memory; auditory processing; gap-detection; dichotic hearing

Abstract

Background and Aim: Because speech perception is disturbed in people who are exposed to noise, this study aimed to investigate the effect of work environment noise on working memory capacity, temporal, and dichotic auditory processing and relationship between them in elementary school teachers.
Methods: Fifty-six female aged 30−50 years were enrolled in our study case and control groups. A total of 28 teachers with normal hearing and poor speech perception in noise were in the case group, and 28 women were controls with normal hearing and good scores in speech perception in noise who did not work in a noisy environment. Working memory tests, dichotic digit test (DDT) and gap-detection test (GDT) were performed for both groups. The mean score of each test was obtained from the two groups and the results were analyzed.
Results: Comparison of means between the two groups in DDT, GDT, and working memory capacity test showed that the scores of the case group were significantly lower than those in the control group (p < 0.05). There was no correlation between working memory capacity test, DDT, and GDT scores. (p > 0.05, r < 0.1).
Conclusion: Noise exposure in the work environment causes weakness in temporal and dichotic auditory processing, and working memory capacity. But there was no correlation between working memory capacity and auditory processing. The findings of this study show the effects of noise exposure on speech perception and the need to protect hearing from noise.

References

1. Kumar UA, Ameenudin S, Sangamanatha AV. Temporal and speech processing skills in normal hearing individuals exposed to occupational noise. Noise Health. 2012;14(58):100-5. doi: 10.4103/1463-1741.97252
2. Omari S, De-Veer A, Amfo-Otu R. The silent killer: an assessment of level of industrial noise and associated health effects on workers. International Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences. 2013;2(2):165-9. doi: 10.14419/ijbas.v2i2.657
3. Zeng FG. Uncovering hidden hearing loss. Hear J. 2015;68(1):6. doi: 10.1097/01.HJ.0000459741.56134.79
4. Kraus N, Banai K. Auditory-processing malleability focus on language and music. Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2007;16(2):105-10. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8721.2007.00485.x
5. Hugdahl K. Dichotic listening: probing temporal lobe functional integrity. In: Davidson RJ, Hugdahl K, editos. Brain asymmetry. 1st ed. Cambridge: MIT Press; 1995. p. 123-56.
6. Zatorre RJ, Belin P. Spectral and temporal processing in human auditory cortex. Cereb Cortex. 2001;11(10):946-53. doi: 10.1093/cercor/11.10.946
7. Baddeley A. Working memory: theories, models, and controversies. Annu Rev Psychol. 2012;63:1-29. doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100422
8. Willis S, Goldbart J, Stansfield J. The strengths and weaknesses in verbal short-term memory and visual working memory in children with hearing impairment and additional language learning difficulties. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2014;78(7):1107-14. doi: 10.1016/j.ijporl.2014.04.025
9. Pisoni DB. Cognitive factors and cochlear implants: some thoughts on perception, learning, and memory in speech perception. Ear Hear. 2000;21(1):70-8.
10. Gathercole SE, Baddeley AD. Working memory and language. 1st ed. New York: Psychology Press; 1993.
11. Baddeley A. Working memory: looking back and looking forward. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2003;4(10):829-39. doi: 10.1038/nrn1201
12. Bays PM. Spikes not slots: noise in neural populations limits working memory. Trends Cogn Sci. 2015;19(8):431-8. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2015.06.004
13. Neher T, Grimm G, Hohmann V. Perceptual consequences of different signal changes due to binaural noise reduction: do hearing loss and working memory capacity play a role? Ear Hear. 2014;35(5):e213-27. doi: 10.1097/AUD.0000000000000054
14. Conway AR, Cowan N, Bunting MF. The cocktail party phenomenon revisited: the importance of working memory capacity. Psychon Bull Rev. 2001;8(2):331-5. doi: 10.3758/BF03196169
15. Jafari Z, Karimi H, Sazmand A, Malayeri S. [Comparing the prevalence of handedness between normal and congenitally deaf students in age intervals of 12 to 18 years in Tehran]. Archives of Rehabilitation. 2007;8(1):25-34. Persian.
16. Moossavi A, Javanbakht M, Arbab Sarjoo H, Bakhshi E, Mahmoodi Bakhtiari B, Lotfi Y. Developmentand psychometric evaluation of Persian version of the quick speech in noise test in Persian speaking 18-25 years old normal adults. Journal of Rehabilitation Sciences and Research. 2016;3(3):51-6.
17. Geers AE, Pisoni DB, Brenner C. Complex working memory span in cochlear implanted and normal hearing teenagers. Otol Neurotol. 2013;34(3):396-401. doi: 10.1097/MAO.0b013e318277a0cb
18. Shahim S. [Wechsler's revised intelligence scale for children/conformation and normalizing]. Shiraz: Shiraz University; 2004. Persian.
19. Au J, Sheehan E, Tsai N, Duncan GJ, Buschkuehl M, Jaeggi SM. Improving fluid intelligence with training on working memory: a meta-analysis. Psychon Bull Rev. 2015;22(2):366-77. doi: 10.3758/s13423-014-0699-x
20. Muluk NB, Yalçinkaya F, Keith RW. Random gap detection test and random gap detection test-expanded: Results in children with previous language delay in early childhood. Auris Nasus Larynx. 2011;38(1):6-13. doi: 10.1016/j.anl.2010.05.007
21. Mahdavi ME, Aghazadeh J, Tahaei SAA, Heiran F, Akbarzadeh Baghban A. [Persian randomized dichotic digits test: development and dichotic listening perfor¬mance in young adults]. Audiol. 2015;23(6):99-113. Persian.
22. Paul BT, Bruce IC, Roberts LE. Evidence that hidden hearing loss underlies amplitude modulation encoding deficits in individuals with and without tinnitus. Hear Res. 2017;344:170-82. doi: 10.1016/j.heares.2016.11.010
23. Liberman MC, Epstein MJ, Cleveland SS, Wang H, Maison SF. Toward a differential diagnosis of hidden hearing loss in humans. PLoS One. 2016;11(9):e0162726. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0162726
24. Kraus N, White-Schwoch T. Not-so-hidden hearing loss. Hear J. 2016;69(5):38-40. doi: 10.1097/01.HJ.0000483269.59643.1a
25. Salvi RJ, Lockwood AH, Frisina RD, Coad ML, Wack DS, Frisina DR. PET imaging of the normal human auditory system: responses to speech in quiet and in background noise. Hear Res. 2002;170(1-2):96-106. doi: 10.1016/S0378-5955(02)00386-6
26. Maerlender AC, Wallis DJ, Isquith PK. Psychometric and behavioral measures of central auditory function: the relationship between dichotic listening and digit span tasks. Child Neuropsychol. 2004;10(4):318-27. doi: 10.1080/09297040490909314
27. Murphy CF, La Torre R, Schochat E. Association between top-down skills and auditory processing tests. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol. 2013;79(6):753-9. doi: 10.5935/1808-8694.20130137
28. Tomlin D, Dillon H, Sharma M, Rance G. The impact of auditory processing and cognitive abilities in children. Ear Hear. 2015;36(5):527-42. doi: 10.1097/AUD.0000000000000172
29. Gordon-Salant S, Cole SS. Effects of age and working memory capacity on speech recognition performance in noise among listeners with normal hearing. Ear Hear. 2016;37(5):593-602. doi: 10.1097/AUD.0000000000000316
Published
2019-05-22
How to Cite
1.
Mehrkian S, Mozaffari Z, Bakhshi E. The relationship between working memory capacity and temporal and dichotic auditory processing in teachers. Aud Vestib Res. 28(2):100-105.
Section
Research Article(s)