Skip to main content
banner image
No data available.
Please log in to see this content.
You have no subscription access to this content.
No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
The full text of this article is not currently available.
1. Akeroyd, M. A. (2008). “ Are individual differences in speech reception related to individual differences in cognitive ability? A survey of twenty experimental studies with normal and hearing-impaired adults,” Int. J. Audiol. 47(Suppl 2), S53S71.
2.American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (1994). “ Audiologic screening” [technical report], available from (Last viewed 7/29/2015).
4. Barrouillet, P. , Portrat, S. , and Camos, V. (2011). “ On the law relating processing to storage in working memory,” Psychol. Rev. 118, 175192.
5. Benard, M. , Mensink, J. , and Baskent, D. (2014). “ Individual differences in top-down restoration of interrupted speech: Links to linguistic and cognitive abilities,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 135(2), EL88EL94.
6. Bhargava, P. , and Baskent, D. (2012). “ Effects of low-pass filtering on intelligibility of periodically interrupted speech,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 131(2), EL87EL92.
8. Camos, V. , and Barrouillet, P. (2009). “ Two maintenance mechanisms of verbal information in working memory,” J. Memory Lang. 61, 457469.
9. Engle, R. (2002). “ Working memory capacity as executive attention,” Curr. Direct. Psychol. Sci. 11, 1923.
10. Humes, L. , Lee, J. , and Coughlin, M. (2006). “ Auditory measures of selective and divided attention in young and older adults using single-talker competition,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 120(5), 29262937.
11. Killion, M. , Niquette, P. , Gudmundsen, G. , Revit, L. , and Banerjee, S. (2004). “ 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. 116(4), 23952405.
12. Miller, G. , and Licklider, J. (1950). “ The intelligibility of interrupted speech,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 22, 167173.
13. Redick, T. , Broadway, J. , Meier, M. , Kuriakose, P. , Unsworth, N. , Kane, M. , and Engle, R. (2012). “ Measuring working memory capacity with automated complex span tasks,” Eur. J. Psychol. Assess. 28(3), 164171.
14. Rönnberg, J. , Rudner, M. , Foo, C. , and Lunner, T. (2008). “ Cognition counts: A working memory system for Ease of Language Understanding (ELU),” Int. J. Audiol. 47(Suppl 2), S99S105.
15. Saija, J. , Akyürek, E. , Andringa, T. , and Başkent, D. (2014). “ Perceptual restoration of degraded speech is preserved with advancing age,” J. Assoc. Res. Otolaryngol. 15(1), 139148.
16. Shafiro, V. , Sheft, S. , and Risley, R. (2011). “ Perception of interrupted speech: Cross-rate variation in the intelligibility of gated and concatenated sentences,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 130(2), EL108EL114.
17. Wang, X. , and Humes, L. (2010). “ Factors influencing recognition of interrupted speech,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 128(4), 21002111.

Data & Media loading...


Article metrics loading...



Understanding interrupted speech requires top-down linguistic and cognitive restoration mechanisms. To investigate the relation between working memory (WM) and perception of interrupted speech, 20 young adults were asked to recognize sentences interrupted at 2 Hz, 8 Hz, and a combination of 2 and 8 Hz. WM was measured using automated reading and operation span tasks. Interestingly, the results presented here revealed no statistical relation between any of the interrupted speech recognition scores and WM scores. This finding is in agreement with previous findings that suggest greater reliance on linguistic factors relative to cognitive factors during perception of interrupted speech.


Full text loading...


Access Key

  • FFree Content
  • OAOpen Access Content
  • SSubscribed Content
  • TFree Trial Content
752b84549af89a08dbdd7fdb8b9568b5 journal.articlezxybnytfddd