Time-Compressed Speech Identification Is Predicted by Auditory Neural Processing, Perceptuomotor Speed, and Executive Functioning in Younger and Older Listeners

  • James W. DiasEmail author
  • Carolyn M. McClaskey
  • Kelly C. Harris
Research Article


Older adults typically have difficulty identifying speech that is temporally distorted, such as reverberant, accented, time-compressed, or interrupted speech. These difficulties occur even when hearing thresholds fall within a normal range. Auditory neural processing speed, which we have previously found to predict auditory temporal processing (auditory gap detection), may interfere with the ability to recognize phonetic features as they rapidly unfold over time in spoken speech. Further, declines in perceptuomotor processing speed and executive functioning may interfere with the ability to track, access, and process information. The current investigation examined the extent to which age-related differences in time-compressed speech identification were predicted by auditory neural processing speed, perceptuomotor processing speed, and executive functioning. Groups of normal-hearing (up to 3000 Hz) younger and older adults identified 40, 50, and 60 % time-compressed sentences. Auditory neural processing speed was defined as the P1 and N1 latencies of click-induced auditory-evoked potentials. Perceptuomotor processing speed and executive functioning were measured behaviorally using the Connections Test. Compared to younger adults, older adults exhibited poorer time-compressed speech identification and slower perceptuomotor processing. Executive functioning, P1 latency, and N1 latency did not differ between age groups. Time-compressed speech identification was independently predicted by P1 latency, perceptuomotor processing speed, and executive functioning in younger and older listeners. Results of model testing suggested that declines in perceptuomotor processing speed mediated age-group differences in time-compressed speech identification. The current investigation joins a growing body of literature suggesting that the processing of temporally distorted speech is impacted by lower-level auditory neural processing and higher-level perceptuomotor and executive processes.


auditory temporal processing time-compressed speech P1 N1 connections test perceptuomotor executive functioning 



We would like to thank Sandra Gordon-Salant for providing the time-compressed stimuli for this study.

Funding Information

This work was supported (in part) by grants from the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (NIDCD) (R01 DC014467, P50 DC00422, and T32 DC014435). The project also received support from the South Carolina Clinical and Translational Research (SCTR) Institute with an academic home at the Medical University of South Carolina, National Institute of Health/National Center for Research Resources (NIH/NCRR) Grant number UL1RR029882. This investigation was conducted in a facility constructed with support from Research Facilities Improvement Program Grant Number C06 RR1 4516 from the National Center for Research Resources, NIH.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. Adams EM, Gordon-Hickey S, Moore RE, Morlas H (2010) Effects of reverberation on acceptable noise level measurements in younger and older adults. Int J Audiol 49(11):832–838. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adank P, Janse E (2010) Comprehension of a novel accent by young and older listeners. Psychol Aging 25(3):736–740CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ahissar E, Ahissar M (2005) Processing of the temporal envelope of speech. In: Heil P, Scheich H, Budinger E, Konig R (eds) The auditory cortex: a synthesis of human and animal research. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp 295–313Google Scholar
  4. Anderer P, Semlitsch HV, Saletu B (1996) Multichannel auditory event-related brain potentials: effects of normal aging on the scalp distribution of N1, P2, N2 and P300 latencies and amplitudes. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 99(5):458–472. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Anderson S, Parbery-Clark A, Yi H-G, Kraus N (2011) A neural basis of speech-in-noise perception in older adults. Ear Hear 32(6):750–757. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. ANSI (2010) Specification for audiometrics. American National Standards Institute, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  7. Basta D, Todt I, Ernst A (2005) Normative data for P1/N1-latencies of vestibular evoked myogenic potentials induced by air- or bone-conducted tone bursts. Clin Neurophysiol 116(9):2216–2219. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Benard MR, Mensink JS, Başkent D (2014) Individual differences in top-down restoration of interrupted speech: links to linguistic and cognitive abilities. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 135(2):EL88–EL94. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bilger RC, Nuetzel JM, Rabinowitz WM, Rzeczkowski C (1984) Standardization of a test of speech perception in noise. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 27(1):32–48. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bologna WJ (2017) Age effects on perceptual organization of speech in realistic environments. (Doctor of Philosophy), University of Maryland, College Park, MDGoogle Scholar
  11. Bunnell, T. (2005). Speech and ASP software. Retrieved from
  12. Cahana-Amitay D, Spiro A, Sayers JT, Oveis AC, Higby E, Ojo EA et al (2016) How older adults use cognition in sentence-final word recognition. Aging Neuropsychol Cognit 23(4):418–444. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Campbell M, Preminger JE, Ziegler CH (2007) The effect of age on visual enhancement in adults with hearing loss. The Journal of the Academy of Rehabilitative Audiology 40:11–32Google Scholar
  14. Dey A, Sommers MS (2015) Age-related differences in inhibitory control predict audiovisual speech perception. Psychol Aging 30(3):634–646. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dubno JR, Dirks DD, Morgan DE (1984) Effects of age and mild hearing loss on speech recognition in noise. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 76(1):87–96. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Eckert M, Keren N, Roberts D, Calhoun V, Harris K (2010) Age-related changes in processing speed: unique contributions of cerebellar and prefrontal cortex. Front Hum Neurosci 4(10).
  17. Ellis RJ, Munro KJ (2013) Does cognitive function predict frequency compressed speech recognition in listeners with normal hearing and normal cognition? Int J Audiol 52(1):14–22. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Folstein MF, Robins LN, Helzer JE (1983) The mini-mental state examination. Arch Gen Psychiatry 40(7):812. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fujihira H, Shiraishi K, Remijn GB (2017) Elderly listeners with low intelligibility scores under reverberation show degraded subcortical representation of reverberant speech. Neurosci Lett 637:102–107. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Füllgrabe C, Moore BCJ, Stone MA (2015) Age-group differences in speech identification despite matched audiometrically normal hearing: contributions from auditory temporal processing and cognition. Front Aging Neurosci 6(347).
  21. Gelfand SA, Piper N, Silman S (1986) Consonant recognition in quiet and in noise with aging among normal hearing listeners. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 80(6):1589–1598. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gelman A, Hill J (2007) Data analysis using regression and mutlilevel/hierarchical models. Cambridge University Press, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  23. Gierhan SME (2013) Connections for auditory language in the human brain. Brain Lang 127(2):205–221. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gmehlin D, Kreisel SH, Bachmann S, Weisbrod M, Thomas C (2011) Age effects on preattentive and early attentive auditory processing of redundant stimuli: is sensory gating affected by physiological aging? The Journals of Gerontology: Series A 66A(10):1043–1053. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gordon-Salant S, Fitzgibbons PJ (1993) Temporal factors and speech recognition performance in young and elderly listeners. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 36(6):1276–1285. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gordon-Salant S, Fitzgibbons PJ (1999) Profile of auditory temporal processing in older listeners. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 42(2):300–311. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gordon-Salant S, Fitzgibbons PJ (2001) Sources of age-related recognition difficulty for time-compressed speech. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 44(4):709–719. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gordon-Salant S, Fitzgibbons PJ (2004) Effects of stimulus and noise rate variability on speech perception by younger and older adults. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 115(4):1808–1817. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gordon-Salant S, Fitzgibbons PJ, Friedman SA (2007) Recognition of time-compressed and natural speech with selective temporal enhancements by young and elderly listeners. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 50(5):1181–1193. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Gordon-Salant S, Fitzgibbons PJ, Yeni-Komshian GH (2011) Auditory temporal processing and aging: implications for speech understanding of older people. Audiology Research 1(1):e4. Google Scholar
  31. Gordon-Salant S, Friedman SA (2011) Recognition of rapid speech by blind and sighted older adults. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 54(2):622–631. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Gordon-Salant S, Yeni-Komshian GH, Fitzgibbons PJ (2010a) Recognition of accented English in quiet and noise by younger and older listeners. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 128(5):3152–3160. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Gordon-Salant S, Yeni-Komshian GH, Fitzgibbons PJ (2010b) Recognition of accented English in quiet by younger normal-hearing listeners and older listeners with normal-hearing and hearing loss. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 128(1):444–455. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Gordon-Salant S, Yeni-Komshian GH, Fitzgibbons PJ, Cohen JI (2015) Effects of age and hearing loss on recognition of unaccented and accented multisyllabic words. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 137(2):884–897. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Gordon-Salant S, Zion DJ, Espy-Wilson C (2014) Recognition of time-compressed speech does not predict recognition of natural fast-rate speech by older listeners. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 136(4):EL268–EL274. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Halling DC, Humes LE (2000) Factors affecting the recognition of reverberant speech by elderly listeners. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 43(2):414–431. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Harris KC, Dubno JR (2017) Age-related deficits in auditory temporal processing: unique contributsion of neural dyssynchrony and slowed neuronal processing. Neurobiol Aging 53:150–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Harris KC, Eckert MA, Ahlstrom JB, Dubno JR (2010) Age-related differences in gap detection: effects of task difficulty and cognitive ability. Hear Res 264(1–2):21–29. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Harris KC, Wilson S, Eckert MA, Dubno JR (2012) Human evoked cortical activity to silent gaps in noise: effects of age, attention, and cortical processing speed. Ear Hear 33(3):330–339. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Helfer KS (1998) Auditory and auditory-visual recognition of clear and conversational speech by older adultsf. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology 9:234–242Google Scholar
  41. Helfer KS, Freyman RL (2014) Stimulus and listener factors affecting age-related changes in competing speech perception. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 136(2):748–759. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Howard CJ, Arnold CPA, Belmonte MK (2017) Slower resting alpha frequency is associated with superior localisation of moving targets. Brain Cogn 117(Supplement C):97–107. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Humes LE (1996) Speech understanding in the elderly. Journal-American Academy of Audiology 7:161–167Google Scholar
  44. Janse E (2009) Processing of fast speech by elderly listeners. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 125(4):2361–2373. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kidd GR, Humes LE (2012) Effects of age and hearing loss on the recognition of interrupted words in isolation and in sentences. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 131(2):1434–1448. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Koch X, Janse E (2016) Speech rate effects on the processing of conversational speech across the adult life span. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 139(4):1618–1636. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Lijffijt M, Lane SD, Meier SL, Boutros NN, Burroughs S, Steinberg JL, ... Swann AC (2009). P50, N100, and P200 sensory gating: relationships with behavioral inhibition, attention, and working memory. Psychophysiology, 46(5), 1059–1068.
  48. Macleod A, Summerfield Q (1990) A procedure for measuring auditory and audiovisual speech-reception thresholds for sentences in noise: rationale, evaluation, and recommendations for use. Br J Audiol 24(1):29–43. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Molis MR, Summers V (2003) Effects of high presentation levels on recognition of low- and high-frequency speech. Acoustics Research Letters Online 4(4):124–128. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Moore BCJ (2014) The role of TFS in speech perception. In: Auditory processing of temporal fine structure. World Scientific, pp 81–102Google Scholar
  51. Moore BCJ, Glasberg BR, Stoev M, Füllgrabe C, Hopkins K (2012) The influence of age and high-frequency hearing loss on sensitivity to temporal fine structure at low frequencies (L). The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 131(2):1003–1006. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Narne V k, Vanaja C (2008) Speech identification and cortical potentials in individuals with auditory neuropathy. Behav Brain Funct 4(1):15. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Neuman AC, Wroblewski M, Hajicek J, Rubinstein A (2010) Combined effects of noise and reverberation on speech recognition performance of normal-hearing children and adults. Ear Hear 31(3):336–344. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Nourski KV, Reale RA, Oya H, Kawasaki H, Kovach CK, Chen H et al (2009) Temporal envelope of time-compressed speech represented in the human auditory cortex. J Neurosci 29(49):15564–15574. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Pichora-Fuller MK (2003) Processing speed and timining in aging adults: psychoacoustics, speech perception, and comprehension. International Journal of Audiology 42:S59–S67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Pichora-Fuller MK, Levitt H (2012) Speech comprehension training and auditory and cognitive processing in older adults. Am J Audiol 21(2):351–357. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Pichora-Fuller MK, Singh G (2006) Effects of age on auditory and cognitive processing: implications for hearing aid fitting and audiologic rehabilitation. Trends in Amplification 10(1):29–59. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Pratt H (2012) Sensory ERP components. In: Luck SJ, Kappenman ES (eds) The Oxford handbook of event-related potential components. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 96–114Google Scholar
  59. Presacco A, Simon JZ, Anderson S (2016) Effect of informational content of noise on speech representation in the aging midbrain and cortex. J Neurophysiol 116(5):2356–2367. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Rance G (2005) Auditory neuropathy/dys-synchrony and its perceptual consequences. Trends in Amplification 9(1):1–43. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Reitan RM (1958) Validity of the Trail Making Test as an indicator of organic brain damage. Percept Mot Skills 8(3):271–276. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Reitan, R. M. (1992). Trail making test: manual for administration and scoring [adults]: Reitan Neuropsychology Laboratory, TucsonGoogle Scholar
  63. Richard Clark C, Veltmeyer MD, Hamilton RJ, Simms E, Paul R, Hermens D, Gordon E (2004) Spontaneous alpha peak frequency predicts working memory performance across the age span. Int J Psychophysiol 53(1):1–9. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Salthouse TA (2000) Aging and measures of processing speed. Biol Psychol 54(1–3):35–54. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Salthouse TA (2005) Relations between cognitive abilities and measures of executive functioning. Neuropsychology 19(4):532–545. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Salthouse TA (2011) What cognitive abilities are involved in trail-making performance? Intelligence 39(4):222–232. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Salthouse TA, Toth J, Daniels K, Parks C, Pak R, Wolbrette M, Hocking KJ (2000) Effects of aging on efficiency of task switching in a variant of the Trail Making Test. Neuropsychology 14(1):102–111. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Starr A, Rance G (2015) Auditory neuropathy. Handb Clin Neurol 129:495–508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Studebaker GA, Sherbecoe RL, McDaniel DM, Gwaltney CA (1999) Monosyllabic word recognition at higher-than-normal speech and noise levels. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 105(4):2431–2444. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Tervaniemi M, Hugdahl K (2003) Lateralization of auditory-cortex functions. Brain Res Rev 43:231–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Tremblay KL, Billings C, Rohila N (2004) Speech evoked cortical potentials: effects of age and stimulus presentation rate. J Am Acad Audiol 15(3):226–237. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Tremblay KL, Kraus N, McGee T, Ponton C, Otis B (2001) Central auditory plasticity: changes in the N1-P2 complex after speech-sound training. Ear Hear 22(2):79–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Tremblay KL, Piskosz M, Souza P (2002) Aging alters the neural representation of speech cues. NeuroReport 13(15):1865–1870CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Tremblay KL, Piskosz M, Souza P (2003) Effects of age and age-related hearing loss on the neural representation of speech cues. Clin Neurophysiol 114(7):1332–1343. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Tye-Murray N, Sommers MS, Spehar B (2007) Audiovisual integration and lipreading abilities of older adults with normal and impaired hearing. Ear Hear 28(5):656–668. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Vaden KI, Kuchinsky SE, Ahlstrom JB, Dubno JR, Eckert MA (2015) Cortical activity predicts which older adults recognize speech in noise and when. J Neurosci 35(9):3929–3937. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Valdés-Hernández PA, Ojeda-González A, Martínez-Montes E, Lage-Castellanos A, Virués-Alba T, Valdés-Urrutia L, Valdes-Sosa PA (2010) White matter architecture rather than cortical surface area correlates with the EEG alpha rhythm. NeuroImage 49(3):2328–2339. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Vaughan NE, Letowski T (1997) Effects of age, speech rate, and type of test on temporal auditory processing. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 40(5):1192–1200. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Vlahou EL, Thurm F, Kolassa I-T, Schlee W (2014) Resting-state slow wave power, healthy aging and cognitive performance. Sci Rep 4:5101. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Woods DL, Clayworth CC (1986) Age-related changes in human middle latency auditory evoked potentials. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology/Evoked Potentials Section 65(4):297–303. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Woods WS, Kalluri S, Pentony S, Nooraei N (2013) Predicting the effect of hearing loss and audibility on amplified speech reception in a multi-talker listening scenario. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 133(6):4268–4278. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Research in Otolaryngology 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of OtolaryngologyMedical University of South CarolinaCharlestonUSA

Personalised recommendations