Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to evaluate effects of masker type and hearing group on the relationship between school-age children's speech recognition and age, vocabulary, working memory, and selective attention. This study also explored effects of masker type and hearing group on the time course of maturation of masked speech recognition. DESIGN: Participants included 31 children with normal hearing (CNH) and 41 children with mild to severe bilateral sensorineural hearing loss (CHL), between 6.7 and 13 years of age. Children with hearing aids used their personal hearing aids throughout testing. Audiometric thresholds and standardized measures of vocabulary, working memory, and selective attention were obtained from each child, along with masked sentence recognition thresholds in a steady state, speech-spectrum noise (SSN) and in a two-talker speech masker (TTS). Aided audibility through children's hearing aids was calculated based on the Speech Intelligibility Index (SII) for all children wearing hearing aids. Linear mixed effects models were used to examine the contribution of group, age, vocabulary, working memory, and attention to individual differences in speech recognition thresholds in each masker. Additional models were constructed to examine the role of aided audibility on masked speech recognition in CHL. Finally, to explore the time course of maturation of masked speech perception, linear mixed effects models were used to examine interactions between age, masker type, and hearing group as predictors of masked speech recognition. RESULTS: Children's thresholds were higher in TTS than in SSN. There was no interaction of hearing group and masker type. CHL had higher thresholds than CNH in both maskers. In both hearing groups and masker types, children with better vocabularies had lower thresholds. An interaction of hearing group and attention was observed only in the TTS. Among CNH, attention predicted thresholds in TTS. Among CHL, vocabulary and aided audibility predicted thresholds in TTS. In both maskers, thresholds decreased as a function of age at a similar rate in CNH and CHL. CONCLUSIONS: The factors contributing to individual differences in speech recognition differed as a function of masker type. In TTS, the factors contributing to individual difference in speech recognition further differed as a function of hearing group. Whereas attention predicted variance for CNH in TTS, vocabulary and aided audibility predicted variance in CHL. CHL required a more favorable signal to noise ratio (SNR) to recognize speech in TTS than in SSN (mean = +1 dB in TTS, -3 dB in SSN). We posit that failures in auditory stream segregation limit the extent to which CHL can recognize speech in a speech masker. Larger sample sizes or longitudinal data are needed to characterize the time course of maturation of masked speech perception in CHL.