Review Article

Central auditory processing in bilinguals

Abstract

Background and Aim: The majority of the world’s population is bilingual. Bilingualism is a form of sensory enrichment that translates to gains in cognitive abilities; these cognitive gains in attention and memory are known to modulate subcortical processing of auditory stimuli. Second language acquisition has a broad impact on various psychological, cognitive, memory, and linguistic processes. Central auditory processing (CAP) is the perceptual processing of auditory information. Due to its importance in bilingu­alism, this study aimed to review the CAP of bilinguals.
Recent Findings: The CAP was studied in three areas: dichotic listening, temporal processing, and speech in noise perception. Regarding dichotic listening, studies have shown that bilinguals have better performance in staggered spondaic word (SSW) test, consonant-vowel dichotic test, dichotic digits test (DDT), and disyllable dichotic test than monolinguals, although similar results have also been reported in SSW and DDT. Regarding temporal processing, the results of bilinguals do not differ from those of monolinguals, although in some cases, it is better in bilinguals. Regarding speech in noise perception, the results between bilinguals and monolinguals are varied depending on the amount of linguistic information available in the stimuli.
Conclusion: Bilingualism has a positive effect on dichotic processing, no effect on temporal processing, and varied effect on speech in noise perception. Bilinguals have poor performance using meaningful speech and better performance using meaningless speech.

1. Bialystok E, Craik FIM, Luk G. Bilingualism: consequences for mind and brain. Trends Cogn Sci. 2012;16(4):240-50. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2012.03.001
2. Morini G, Newman RS. Monolingual and bilingual word recognition and word learning in background noise. Lang Speech. 2020;63(2):381-403. doi: 10.1177/0023830919846158
3. Vaezi S, Zolfaghari Ardchi F, Rahimi E. [Cognitive processing in bilingual and monolingual children]. 2012;3(1):119-34. Tafakkor va Kudak (Thinking and Children). Persian.
4. Bailey C, Venta A, Langley H. The bilingual [dis] advantage. Lang Cogn. 2020;12(2):225-81. doi: 10.1017/langcog.2019.43[Opens in a new window]
5. Cook V. Second language learning and language teaching. 5th ed. New York: Routledge; 2016.
6. Kraus N, Anderson S. Bilingualism Enhances Neural Speech Encoding. Hearing J. 2014;67(7):40. doi: 10.1097/01.HJ.0000452246.45569.6a
7. Stern Y. What is cognitive reserve? Theory and research application of the reserve concept. J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2002;8(3):448-60. doi: 10.1017/S1355617702813248
8. Barzegarfard S, Keramati H. [Inquiring the cognitive control, social problem solving and self-esteem between monolingual and bilingual students]. Journal of Cognitive Psychology. 2016;3(3-4):61-9. Persian.
9. Mechelli A, Crinion JT, Noppeney U, O'Doherty J, Ashburner J, Frackowiak RS, et al. Neurolinguistics: structural plasticity in the bilingual brain. Nature. 2004;431(7010):757. doi: 10.1038/431757a
10. Golestani N, Paus T, Zatorre RJ. Anatomical correlates of learning novel speech sounds. Neuron. 2002;35(5):997-1010. doi: 10.1016/s0896-6273(02)00862-0
11. Saur D, Baumgaertner A, Moehring A, Büchel C, Bonnesen M, et al. Word order processing in the bilingual brain. Neuropsychologia. 2009;47(1):158-68. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2008.08.007
12. 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
13. Kotz SA. A critical review of ERP and fMRI evidence on L2 syntactic processing. Brain Lang. 2009;109(2-3):68-74. doi: 10.1016/j.bandl.2008.06.002
14. Macizo P, Herrera A, Román P, Martín MC. Second language acquisition influences the processing of number words. Procedia Soc Behav Sci. 2010;9:1128-34. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.12.295
15. Bialystok E, Martin MM. Attention and inhibition in bilingual children: Evidence from the dimensional change card sort task. Dev Sci. 2004;7(3):325-39. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-7687.2004.00351.x
16. Blom E, Küntay AC, Messer M, Verhagen J, Leseman P. The benefits of being bilingual: Working memory in bilingual Turkish–Dutch children. J Exp Child Psychol. 2014;128:105-19. doi: 10.1016/j.jecp.2014.06.007
17. Yousefi R, Soleymani M, Ghazanfariyanpour S. [Comparison of selective attention and intelligence profile in bilingual and monolingual adolescents]. Archives of Rehabilitation. 2018;18(4):278-87. Persian. doi: 10.21859/jrehab.18.4.2
18. Vaquero L, Rousseau P-N, Vozian D, Klein D, Penhune V. What you learn & when you learn it: Impact of early bilingual & music experience on the structural characteristics of auditory-motor pathways. Neuroimage. 2020;213:116689. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2020.116689
19. Koravand A, Thompson J, Chénier G, Kordjazi N. The effects of bilingualism on speech evoked brainstem responses recorded in quiet and in noise. Can Acoust. 2019;47(2):23-30.
20. Kraus N, White-Schwoch T. The bilingualism paradox. Hear J. 2017;70(1):40,42. doi: 10.1097/01.HJ.0000511727.48959.2d
21. 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
22. Katz J, Wilde L. [Desordens do processamento auditivo]. In: Katz J, editor. Tratado de Audiologia Clínica (4a), Manole, São Paulo; 1999, pp. 486-98. Potugese.
23. Kuhl PK, Miller JD. Speech perception by the chinchilla: Identification functions for synthetic VOT stimuli. J Acoust Soc Am. 1978;63(3):905-17. doi: 10.1121/1.381770
24. Rajan R, Cainer KE. Ageing without hearing loss or cognitive impairment causes a decrease in speech intelligibility only in informational maskers. Neuroscience. 2008;154(2):784-95. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroscience.2008.03.067
25. Rogers CL, Lister JJ, Febo DM, Besing JM, Abrams HB. Effects of bilingualism, noise, and reverberation on speech perception by listeners with normal hearing. Appl Psycholinguist. 2006;27(3):465-85. doi: 10.1017/S014271640606036X
26. 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
27. Snyder JS, Carter OL, Lee S-K, Hannon EE, Alain C. Effects of context on auditory stream segregation. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2008;34(4):1007-16. doi: 10.1037/0096-1523.34.4.1007
28. Snyder JS, Alain C. Toward a neurophysiological theory of auditory stream segregation. Psychol Bull. 2007;133(5):780-99. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.133.5.780
29. Nazeri A, Lotfi Y, Moosavi A, Zamiri F, Delfi M. [Auditory processing disorders in elderly people]. J Rehab Med. 2014;3(1):58-66. Persian. doi: 10.22037/JRM.2014.1100126
30. Roeser RJ. Roeser's audiology desk reference. 2nd ed. New York: Thieme; 1996.
31. Katz J. The Buffalo CAPD Model: The importance of phonemes in evaluation and remediation. J Phonet Audiol. 2016;2(1):111.
32. Hajiabolhassan F, Lotfi Y, Azordegan F. [Introducing and evaluating a Farsi - language version of the staggered spondaic word test in normal hearing subject]. Audiol. 2006;15(1):39-46. Persian.
33. Gresele ADP, Garcia MV, Torres EMO, dos Santos SN, Costa MJ. Bilingualism and auditory processing abilities: performance of adults in dichotic listening tests. Codas. 2013;25(6):506-12. doi: 10.1590/S2317-17822014000100003
34. Ferreira GC, Torres EMO, Garcia MV, Vasconcellos SJL, Frizzo NS, Costa MJ. The effect of bilingualism on cognitive and auditory abilities in normally hearing adults. Revista CEFAC. 2018;20(1):21-8. doi: 10.1590/1982-0216201820112417
35. Silva JC. Evaluation of auditory processing in monolingual and bilingual subjects : TDD and SSW test. 25 f. Course Conclusion Paper (Bachelor's Degree in Speech Therapy) —Universidade de Brasília, Brasília, 2018.
36. Jalilvand Karimi L, Motlaghzadeh L, Mohammadkhani G, Akbarzadeh Baghban A. The comparison of auditory capacity between bilinguals and monolinguals by consonant - vowel dichotic test. J Rehab Med. 2013;2(3): 19-30. Persian. doi: 10.22037/JRM.2013.1100113
37. Mansoori N, Tahaei SAA, Jafari Z, Kamali M. [The auditory attention status in Iranian bilingual and monolingual people]. Audiol. 2013;22(2):40-6. Persian.
38. Zaidan E, Garcia AP, Tedesco MLF, Baran JA. Performance of normal young adults in two temporal resolution tests. Pro Fono. 2008;20(1):19-24. doi: 10.1590/s0104-6872008000100004
39. Darestani Farahani E, Wouters J, van Wieringen A. Contributions of non-primary cortical sources to auditory temporal processing. Neuroimage. 2019;191:303-14. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2019.02.037
40. Sanayi R, Mohamadkhani G, Pourbakht A, Jalilvand L, Jalayi S, Shokri S. Auditory temporal processing abilities in early azari-persian bilinguals. Iran J Otorhinolaryngol. 2013;25(4):227-32. doi: 10.22038/IJORL.2013.1154
41. Gandour JT. Neural specializations for pitch in tonal languages. In proceeding of Speech Prosody Conference. 2012 May 22-25; Shanghai, China. 2012. pp. 624-8.
42. Oppitz SJ, Pelissari IG, Gois M, Garcia MV, Bruno RS, dos Santos Filha VAV. Temporal Processing in Monolingual and Bilingual Normal Hearing Adults. Int Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2014;18 (S 01):a2281.
43. Omidvar S, Jafari Z, Tahaei AA, Salehi M. Comparison of auditory temporal resolution between monolingual Persian and bilingual Turkish-Persian individuals. Int J Audiol. 2013 ;52(4):236-41. doi: 10.3109/14992027.2012.744106
44. Moore BCJ. An introduction to the psychology of hearing. 6th ed. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing, Ltd.; 2012.
45. 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. J Acoust Soc Am. 2004;116(4 Pt 1):2395-405. doi: 10.1121/1.1784440
46. Duncan KR, Aarts NL. A comparison of the HINT and Quick Sin Tests. Can J Speech Lang Pathol Audiol. 2006;30(2):86-94.
47. Aarabi S, Jarollahi F, Badfar S, Hosseinabadi R, Ahadi M. Speech perception in noise mechanisms. Aud Vestib Res. 2016;25(4):221-6.
48. Krizman J, Bradlow AR, Lam SS, Kraus N. How bilinguals listen in noise: linguistic and non-linguistic factors. Biling (Camb Engl). 2017;20(4):834-43. doi: 10.1017/S1366728916000444
49. 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
50. Tabri D, Chacra KMSA, 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
51. 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. doi: 10.3766/jaaa.19.1.2
52. Bidelman GM, Heath ST. Neural correlates of enhanced audiovisual processing in the bilingual brain. Neuroscience. 2019;401:11-20. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroscience.2019.01.003
53. Gordon DP, Zatorre RJ. A right-ear advantage for dichotic listening in bilingual children. Brain Lang. 1981;13(2):389-96. doi: 10.1016/0093-934x(81)90103-6
54. Sanders LD, Ameral V, Sayles K. Event-related potentials index segmentation of nonsense sounds. Neuropsychologia. 2009;47(4):1183-6. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2008.11.005
55. 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.
56. Krizman J, Skoe E, Marian V, Kraus N. Bilingualism increases neural response consistency and attentional control: Evidence for sensory and cognitive coupling. Brain Lang. 2014;128(1):34-40. doi: 10.1016/j.bandl.2013.11.006
57. Rahmani E, Jarollahi F, Hosseini A, Soleymani M. The effect of early bilingualism on auditory temporal processing ability using time-compressed Persian speech test. Aud Vestib Res. 2015;24(2):48-53.
58. Guiberson M. Bilingual skills of deaf/hard of hearing children from Spain. Cochlear Implants Int. 2014;15(2):87-92. doi: 10.1179/1754762813Y.0000000058
59. 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
60. Lotfi Y, Chupani J, Javanbakht M, Bakhshi E. Evaluation of speech perception in noise in Kurd-Persian bilinguals. Aud Vestib Res. 2019;28(1):36-41. doi: 10.18502/avr.v28i1.414
61. Kumar K, Sreeshma R, Kalaiah MK. A comparison of temporal processing and spectral processing abilities of monolingual, bilingual and multilingual children. Int J Audiol. 2020;59(7):501-5. doi: 10.1080/14992027.2020.1720921
Files
IssueVol 30 No 3 (2021) QRcode
SectionReview Article(s)
Published2021-05-29
Keywords
Central auditory processing bilingual dichotic listening temporal processing speech in noise perception

Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
How to Cite
1.
Chupani J, Javanbakht M, Lotfi Y. Central auditory processing in bilinguals. Aud Vestib Res. 30(3):160-166.