Effect of Ageing on Semantic and Phonetic Information Processing
,
Abstract
Background and Aim: To understand the difficulties of elderly in natural listening situations, the present study assessed the ability of participants to extract phonetic information and semantic information in noise. The main objective is to evaluate the relationship between age and performance in Semantic Information Processing (SIP) and Phonetic Information Processing (PIP) tasks.
Methods: Fifty-three normal hearing participants aged 40 to 65 years were categorized into five age groups. Participants underwent information processing assessments using standardized semantic and phonetic questions from Kannada stories under signal-to-noise ratios (SNR) i.e., quiet, 0 dB SNR, and -4 dB SNR conditions.
Results: Younger participants outperformed older participants in both SIP and PIP tasks. Performance was optimal in quiet conditions, followed by 0 dB and -4 dB SNR. Except at -4 dB, PIP scores exceeded SIP scores. A significant differences was observed between the groups 1-4 and group 5 at 0 dB SNR in PIP condition only. A moderate negative correlations indicated that performance in both SIP and PIP declined with age, with linear regression revealing reductions of 0.216 and 0.210 each year in SIP and PIP respectively.
Conclusion: Age-related declines in PIP were noted at one SNR, while SIP remained stable, aligning with the Transmission Deficit Hypothesis (TDH). Nonetheless, regression analyses indicated a general decline in both SIP and PIP with age, supporting the Inhibitory Deficit Hypothesis (IDH).
1. Polišenská K, Chiat S, Comer A, McKenzie K. Semantic effects in sentence recall: the contribution of immediate vs delayed recall in language assessment. J Commun Disord. 2014;52:65-77. [DOI:10.1016/j.jcomdis.2014.08.002]
2. Hagerman B. Sentences for testing speech intelligibility in noise. Scand Audiol. 1982;11(2):79-87. [DOI:10.3109/01050398209076203]
3. Jerger J, Wilson R, Margolis R. Suggestion for terminological reform in speech audiometry. J Am Acad Audiol. 2014;25(2):229-30. [DOI:10.3766/jaaa.25.2.11]
4. Stanley NS. The Effects of Linguistic and Non-linguistic Masking on Auditory Event-Related Potentials Related to Semantic Processing: An Aging Study. [Doctoral Dissertation]. Gulf Shores: University of South Alabama; 2019.
5. Murphy DR, Daneman M, Schneider BA. Why do older adults have difficulty following conversations? Psychol Aging. 2006;21(1):49-61. [DOI:10.1037/0882-7974.21.1.49]
6. Tye-Murray N, Sommers M, Spehar B, Myerson J, Hale S, Rose NS. Auditory-visual discourse comprehension by older and young adults in favorable and unfavorable conditions. Int J Audiol. 2008;47 Suppl 2(Suppl 2):S31-7. [DOI:10.1080/14992020802301662]
7. Xia J, Kalluri S, Micheyl C, Hafter E. Continued search for better prediction of aided speech understanding in multi-talker environments. J Acoust Soc Am. 2017;142(4):2386.
8. Stanley N, Davis T, Estis J. The Effect of Signal-to-Noise Ratio on Linguistic Processing in a Semantic Judgment Task: An Aging Study. J Am Acad Audiol. 2017;28(3):209-21. [DOI:10.3766/jaaa.16025]
9. Hasher L, Zacks RT. Working Memory, Comprehension, and Aging: A Review and a New View. Psychol Learn Motiv. 1988;22:193-225. [DOI:10.1016/S0079-7421(08)60041-9]
10. Hasher L. Inhibitory deficit hypothesis. In: Whitbourne SK, editor. The Encyclopedia of Adulthood and Aging. 1st ed. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Inc; 2015. p. 1-5.
11. Cameli L, Phillips NA. Age-related differences in semantic priming: evidence from event-related brain potentials. Brain Cogn. 2000;43(1-3):69-73.
12. Fong MC, Law TS, Ma MK, Hui NY, Wang WS. Can inhibition deficit hypothesis account for age-related differences in semantic fluency? Converging evidence from Stroop color and word test and an ERP flanker task. Brain Lang. 2021;218:104952. [DOI:10.1016/j.bandl.2021.104952]
13. Nozari N. The dual origin of semantic errors in access deficit: activation vs. inhibition deficit. Cogn Neuropsychol. 2019;36(1-2):31-53. [DOI:10.1080/02643294.2019.1587397]
14. Stothart G, Kazanina N. Auditory perception in the aging brain: the role of inhibition and facilitation in early processing. Neurobiol Aging. 2016;47:23-34. [DOI:10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2016.06.022]
15. van Knijff EC, Coene M, Govaerts PJ. Speech understanding in noise in elderly adults: the effect of inhibitory control and syntactic complexity. Int J Lang Commun Disord. 2018;53(3):628-42. [DOI:10.1111/1460-6984.12376]
16. Taylor JK, Burke DM. Asymmetric aging effects on semantic and phonological processes: naming in the picture-word interference task. Psychol Aging. 2002;17(4):662-76. [DOI:10.1037//0882-7974.17.4.662]
17. MacKay DG, Burke DM. Cognition and aging: A theory of new learning and the use of old connections. In: Hess TM, editor. Aging and Cognition: Knowledge Organization and Utilization. North-Holland: Elsevier Science Publishers; 1990. p. 213-64.
18. O'Hanlon L, Kemper S, Wilcox KA. Aging, encoding, and word retrieval: distinguishing phonological and memory processes. Exp Aging Res. 2005;31(2):149-71. [DOI:10.1080/03610730590915001]
19. Ouyang M, Cai X, Zhang Q. Aging Effects on Phonological and Semantic Priming in the Tip-of-the-Tongue: Evidence From a Two-Step Approach. Front Psychol. 2020;11:338. [DOI:10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00338]
20. Shaywitz BA, Pugh KR, Constable RT, Shaywitz SE, Bronen RA, Fulbright RK, et al. Localization of semantic processing using functional magnetic resonance imaging. Hum Brain Mapp. 1994;2(3):149-58. [DOI:10.1002/hbm.460020304]
21. Best V, Keidser G, Buchholz JM, Freeston K. Development and preliminary evaluation of a new test of ongoing speech comprehension. Int J Audiol. 2016;55(1):45-52. [DOI:10.3109/14992027.2015.1055835]
22. Ajith KU, Hemanth N. Development of some auditory related cognitive tests: Assessment of cognitive reserve in individuals with older adults. Mysore: ARF Funded project submitted to All India Institute of Speech and Hearing, Mysuru; 2017. http://203.129.241.86:8080/xmlui/handle/123456789/4031
23. Levelt WJ. Timing in speech production with special reference to word form encoding. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1993;682:283-95. [DOI:10.1111/j.1749-6632.1993.tb22976.x]
24. Sommers MS, Hale S, Myerson J, Rose N, Tye-Murray N, Spehar B. Listening comprehension across the adult lifespan. Ear Hear. 2011;32(6):775-81. [DOI:10.1097/AUD.0b013e3182234cf6]
25. Hoen M. (2015). Using the rationalized arcsine unit transform with excel. Technical Report, February, 1–3.
26. Kavé G, Knafo-Noam A. Lifespan development of phonemic and semantic fluency: Universal increase, differential decrease. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol. 2015;37(7):751-63. [DOI:10.1080/13803395.2015.1065958]
27. Diaz MT, Johnson MA, Burke DM, Madden DJ. Age-related differences in the neural bases of phonological and semantic processes. J Cogn Neurosci. 2014;26(12):2798-811. [DOI:10.1162/jocn_a_00665]
28. MacKay DG, Abrams L, Pedroza MJ. Aging on the input versus output side: theoretical implications of age-linked asymmetries between detecting versus retrieving orthographic information. Psychol Aging. 1999 Mar;14(1):3-17. [DOI:10.1037//0882-7974.14.1.3]
29. Hasher L, Zacks RT, May CP. Inhibitory Control, Circadian Arousal, and Age. In: Gopher D, Koriat A, editors. Attention and Performance. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; p. 653-75.
2. Hagerman B. Sentences for testing speech intelligibility in noise. Scand Audiol. 1982;11(2):79-87. [DOI:10.3109/01050398209076203]
3. Jerger J, Wilson R, Margolis R. Suggestion for terminological reform in speech audiometry. J Am Acad Audiol. 2014;25(2):229-30. [DOI:10.3766/jaaa.25.2.11]
4. Stanley NS. The Effects of Linguistic and Non-linguistic Masking on Auditory Event-Related Potentials Related to Semantic Processing: An Aging Study. [Doctoral Dissertation]. Gulf Shores: University of South Alabama; 2019.
5. Murphy DR, Daneman M, Schneider BA. Why do older adults have difficulty following conversations? Psychol Aging. 2006;21(1):49-61. [DOI:10.1037/0882-7974.21.1.49]
6. Tye-Murray N, Sommers M, Spehar B, Myerson J, Hale S, Rose NS. Auditory-visual discourse comprehension by older and young adults in favorable and unfavorable conditions. Int J Audiol. 2008;47 Suppl 2(Suppl 2):S31-7. [DOI:10.1080/14992020802301662]
7. Xia J, Kalluri S, Micheyl C, Hafter E. Continued search for better prediction of aided speech understanding in multi-talker environments. J Acoust Soc Am. 2017;142(4):2386.
8. Stanley N, Davis T, Estis J. The Effect of Signal-to-Noise Ratio on Linguistic Processing in a Semantic Judgment Task: An Aging Study. J Am Acad Audiol. 2017;28(3):209-21. [DOI:10.3766/jaaa.16025]
9. Hasher L, Zacks RT. Working Memory, Comprehension, and Aging: A Review and a New View. Psychol Learn Motiv. 1988;22:193-225. [DOI:10.1016/S0079-7421(08)60041-9]
10. Hasher L. Inhibitory deficit hypothesis. In: Whitbourne SK, editor. The Encyclopedia of Adulthood and Aging. 1st ed. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Inc; 2015. p. 1-5.
11. Cameli L, Phillips NA. Age-related differences in semantic priming: evidence from event-related brain potentials. Brain Cogn. 2000;43(1-3):69-73.
12. Fong MC, Law TS, Ma MK, Hui NY, Wang WS. Can inhibition deficit hypothesis account for age-related differences in semantic fluency? Converging evidence from Stroop color and word test and an ERP flanker task. Brain Lang. 2021;218:104952. [DOI:10.1016/j.bandl.2021.104952]
13. Nozari N. The dual origin of semantic errors in access deficit: activation vs. inhibition deficit. Cogn Neuropsychol. 2019;36(1-2):31-53. [DOI:10.1080/02643294.2019.1587397]
14. Stothart G, Kazanina N. Auditory perception in the aging brain: the role of inhibition and facilitation in early processing. Neurobiol Aging. 2016;47:23-34. [DOI:10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2016.06.022]
15. van Knijff EC, Coene M, Govaerts PJ. Speech understanding in noise in elderly adults: the effect of inhibitory control and syntactic complexity. Int J Lang Commun Disord. 2018;53(3):628-42. [DOI:10.1111/1460-6984.12376]
16. Taylor JK, Burke DM. Asymmetric aging effects on semantic and phonological processes: naming in the picture-word interference task. Psychol Aging. 2002;17(4):662-76. [DOI:10.1037//0882-7974.17.4.662]
17. MacKay DG, Burke DM. Cognition and aging: A theory of new learning and the use of old connections. In: Hess TM, editor. Aging and Cognition: Knowledge Organization and Utilization. North-Holland: Elsevier Science Publishers; 1990. p. 213-64.
18. O'Hanlon L, Kemper S, Wilcox KA. Aging, encoding, and word retrieval: distinguishing phonological and memory processes. Exp Aging Res. 2005;31(2):149-71. [DOI:10.1080/03610730590915001]
19. Ouyang M, Cai X, Zhang Q. Aging Effects on Phonological and Semantic Priming in the Tip-of-the-Tongue: Evidence From a Two-Step Approach. Front Psychol. 2020;11:338. [DOI:10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00338]
20. Shaywitz BA, Pugh KR, Constable RT, Shaywitz SE, Bronen RA, Fulbright RK, et al. Localization of semantic processing using functional magnetic resonance imaging. Hum Brain Mapp. 1994;2(3):149-58. [DOI:10.1002/hbm.460020304]
21. Best V, Keidser G, Buchholz JM, Freeston K. Development and preliminary evaluation of a new test of ongoing speech comprehension. Int J Audiol. 2016;55(1):45-52. [DOI:10.3109/14992027.2015.1055835]
22. Ajith KU, Hemanth N. Development of some auditory related cognitive tests: Assessment of cognitive reserve in individuals with older adults. Mysore: ARF Funded project submitted to All India Institute of Speech and Hearing, Mysuru; 2017. http://203.129.241.86:8080/xmlui/handle/123456789/4031
23. Levelt WJ. Timing in speech production with special reference to word form encoding. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1993;682:283-95. [DOI:10.1111/j.1749-6632.1993.tb22976.x]
24. Sommers MS, Hale S, Myerson J, Rose N, Tye-Murray N, Spehar B. Listening comprehension across the adult lifespan. Ear Hear. 2011;32(6):775-81. [DOI:10.1097/AUD.0b013e3182234cf6]
25. Hoen M. (2015). Using the rationalized arcsine unit transform with excel. Technical Report, February, 1–3.
26. Kavé G, Knafo-Noam A. Lifespan development of phonemic and semantic fluency: Universal increase, differential decrease. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol. 2015;37(7):751-63. [DOI:10.1080/13803395.2015.1065958]
27. Diaz MT, Johnson MA, Burke DM, Madden DJ. Age-related differences in the neural bases of phonological and semantic processes. J Cogn Neurosci. 2014;26(12):2798-811. [DOI:10.1162/jocn_a_00665]
28. MacKay DG, Abrams L, Pedroza MJ. Aging on the input versus output side: theoretical implications of age-linked asymmetries between detecting versus retrieving orthographic information. Psychol Aging. 1999 Mar;14(1):3-17. [DOI:10.1037//0882-7974.14.1.3]
29. Hasher L, Zacks RT, May CP. Inhibitory Control, Circadian Arousal, and Age. In: Gopher D, Koriat A, editors. Attention and Performance. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; p. 653-75.
| Files | ||
| Issue | Articles in Press | |
| Section | Research Article(s) | |
| Keywords | ||
| Semantic information processing phonetic information processing test of speech comprehension transmission deficit hypothesis inhibitory deficit hypothesis | ||
| Rights and permissions | |
|
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
How to Cite
1.
Kooknoor V, Shetty HN. Effect of Ageing on Semantic and Phonetic Information Processing. Aud Vestib Res. 2025;.
