Brain aging and speech perception: Effects of background noise and talker variability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Speech perception can be challenging, especially for older adults. Despite the importance of speech perception in social interactions, the mechanisms underlying these difficulties remain unclear and treatment options are scarce. While several studies have suggested that decline within cortical auditory regions may be a hallmark of these difficulties, a growing number of studies have reported decline in regions beyond the auditory processing network, including regions involved in speech processing and executive control, suggesting a potentially diffuse underlying neural disruption, though no consensus exists regarding underlying dysfunctions. To address this issue, we conducted two experiments in which we investigated age differences in speech perception when background noise and talker variability are manipulated, two factors known to be detrimental to speech perception. In Experiment 1, we examined the relationship between speech perception, hearing and auditory attention in 88 healthy participants aged 19 to 87 years. In Experiment 2, we examined cortical thickness and BOLD signal using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and related these measures to speech perception performance using a simple mediation approach in 32 participants from Experiment 1. Our results show that, even after accounting for hearing thresholds and two measures of auditory attention, speech perception significantly declined with age. Age-related decline in speech perception in noise was associated with thinner cortex in auditory and speech processing regions (including the superior temporal cortex, ventral premotor cortex and inferior frontal gyrus) as well as in regions involved in executive control (including the dorsal anterior insula, the anterior cingulate cortex and medial frontal cortex). Further, our results show that speech perception performance was associated with reduced brain response in the right superior temporal cortex in older compared to younger adults, and to an increase in response to noise in older adults in the left anterior temporal cortex. Talker variability was not associated with different activation patterns in older compared to younger adults. Together, these results support the notion of a diffuse rather than a focal dysfunction underlying speech perception in noise difficulties in older adults.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".