Davidson Souza 2023 Relationships Between Auditory Processing and Cognitive Abilities in Adults A Systematic Review

Review Article
Relationships Between Auditory Processing and

Cognitive Abilities in Adults: A Systematic Review
Alyssa Davidsona and Pamela Souzab
a
Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, MD b Northwestern University, Evanston, IL
ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Article History: Purpose: The contributions from the central auditory and cognitive systems
Received December 15, 2022 play a major role in communication. Understanding the relationship between
Revision received April 16, 2023 auditory and cognitive abilities has implications for auditory rehabilitation for
Accepted October 13, 2023 clinical patients. The purpose of this systematic review is to address the ques-
tion, “In adults, what is the relationship between central auditory processing
Editor-in-Chief: Peggy B. Nelson abilities and cognitive abilities?”
Editor: Michelle R. Molis Method: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses
guidelines were followed to identify, screen, and determine eligibility for articles
https://doi.org/10.1044/2023_JSLHR-22-00716 that addressed the research question of interest. Medical librarians and subject
matter experts assisted in search strategy, keyword review, and structuring the
systematic review process. To be included, articles needed to have an auditory
measure (either behavioral or electrophysiologic), a cognitive measure that
assessed individual ability, and the measures needed to be compared to one
another.
Results: Following two rounds of identification and screening, 126 articles were
included for full analysis. Central auditory processing (CAP) measures were
grouped into categories (behavioral: speech in noise, altered speech, temporal
processing, binaural processing; electrophysiologic: mismatch negativity, P50,
N200, P200, and P300). The most common CAP measures were sentence rec-
ognition in speech-shaped noise and the P300. Cognitive abilities were grouped
into constructs, and the most common construct was working memory. The
findings were mixed, encompassing both significant and nonsignificant relation-
ships; therefore, the results do not conclusively establish a direct link between
CAP and cognitive abilities. Nonetheless, several consistent relationships
emerged across different domains. Distorted or noisy speech was related to
working memory or processing speed. Auditory temporal order tasks showed
significant relationships with working memory, fluid intelligence, or multidomain
cognitive measures. For electrophysiology, relationships were observed between
some cortical evoked potentials and working memory or executive/inhibitory pro-
cesses. Significant results were consistent with the hypothesis that assessments
of CAP and cognitive processing would be positively correlated.
Conclusions: Results from this systematic review summarize relationships
between CAP and cognitive processing, but also underscore the complexity of
these constructs, the importance of study design, and the need to select an
appropriate measure. The relationship between auditory and cognitive abilities
is complex but can provide informative context when creating clinical manage-
ment plans. This review supports a need to develop guidelines and training for
audiologists who wish to consider individual central auditory and cognitive abili-
ties in patient care.
Supplemental Material: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.24855174
Communication under adverse listening conditions—

Correspondence to Alyssa Davidson: ajeverett9917@gmail.com. Dis-
such as with unclear talkers, in background noise, or in
closure: The authors have declared that no competing financial or non- reverberant acoustic environments—is a frequent complaint
financial interests existed at the time of publication. expressed to clinical audiologists. In some cases, the
296 Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research • Vol. 67 • 296–345 • January 2024 • Copyright © 2023 The Authors
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Downloaded from: https://pubs.asha.org 207.248.194.73 on 02/01/2024, Terms of Use: https://pubs.asha.org/pubs/rights_and_permissions
patient’s listening difficulty may be due to poor signal audi- pitch pattern sequencing, temporal ordering, gaps in noise,
bility from peripheral hearing loss or energetic masking of simple dichotic speech tests using single words or spoken
the target by background noise. However, clinicians and digits, and low-redundancy speech tests. Chermak and
researchers also recognize the role of higher level abilities, Musiek recommend testing between three and five tests in
specifically contributions from the central auditory and a CAP battery, with no more than one test per category.
cognitive systems. Central auditory processing (CAP) refers
to the perceptual processing of information by the neural Electrophysiologic measures at the level of the audi-
centers and transmission pathways between the cochlea and tory brainstem and/or auditory cortex may also be used.
the primary auditory cortex (American Speech-Language- The electrophysiologic measures proposed to directly
Hearing Association [ASHA], n.d.). Cognitive processing assess central auditory function include the auditory brain-
refers to processing of information at the level of the cortex stem response (ABR), middle latency response (MLR),
such as memory, speed, and language. Together with late cortical responses, and mismatch negativity (MMN).
peripheral processing, these functions allow a listener to Electrophysiologic measures have been recommended to
hear and attend to a signal, extract relevant information, assess for neurological disorder, or when the patient can-
and use that information to determine meaning, reflect, not reliably complete behavioral testing. While electro-
and respond. physiology measures are more common in research stud-
ies than clinical assessment (Chermak & Musiek, 2011;
CAP skills relevant to communication include dis- Emanuel et al., 2011; Tremblay & Kraus, 2002), their
criminating and recognizing patterns, integrating and dis- lack of bias and sensitivity to individual differences jus-
criminating temporal information, dichotic processing of tifies their inclusion in this systematic review.
competing or concurrent stimuli, and localizing or latera-
lizing sound. Figure 1 provides a schematic of CAP cate- Although auditory processing is not analogous with
gories (information from Chermak & Musiek, 1997) that general speech recognition, individual differences in audi-
identifies six primary categories (temporal, dichotic, low tory processing have consequences for communication
redundancy, binaural interaction, discrimination, and elec- especially in environments with distorted, complex, or rap-
trophysiology) for evaluation with examples of tests for idly varying signals. Listeners with poor CAP may have
each category. The categories are all connected in that difficulty localizing sounds, distinguishing between target
they represent CAP abilities, but they do not necessarily and background signals, or comprehending rapid speech.
depend on or relate to one another. Common tests include Central auditory processing disorder (CAPD) refers to per-
formance that is lower than normal in one or more audi-
tory processing domains, as defined by test scores. Much
Figure 1. Central auditory processing schematic defining the six
main categories used to evaluate auditory processing abilities. of the literature on CAPD is focused on children and
motivated by educational achievement or learning differ-
ences. CAPD can also occur in adults, either persisting
from early life or associated with a specific etiology such
as traumatic brain injury (Fausti et al., 2009; Gallun
et al., 2012; Hoover et al., 2017), stroke (Bamiou et al.,
2012), or exposure to neurotoxins (Fuente & McPherson,
2007; Guthrie et al., 2014). In general, listeners with poor
auditory processing may not be able to extract as much
information from the auditory signal as listeners with bet-
ter auditory processing. CAPD in adults is associated with
reduced hearing aid benefit and/or satisfaction (Davidson
et al., 2021; Givens et al., 1998; Humes, 2004; Lopez-
Poveda et al., 2017) and with increased risk of dementia
(Gates et al., 2011). Therefore, understanding how audi-
tory processing contributes to listeners’ communication
abilities in different scenarios may assist clinicians in mak-
ing differential diagnoses and recommending appropriate
auditory rehabilitation.
A large body of work also recognizes the role of

cognitive abilities in communication. Several well-
established frameworks have described cognitive abilities
as representing distinct but related domains (e.g.,
Davidson & Souza: Relationship Between Aud and Cog Abilities 297
Baddeley, 2012; Cowan, 2017; Diamond, 2013; Salthouse, When a listener has good peripheral auditory sensitiv-
2000). Although comprehensive descriptions of cognitive ity but poor measured or perceived listening ability, how
models and their theoretical frameworks are beyond the should we view the relative contributions of CAP and cogni-
scope of this review, the following section summarizes tive abilities? Some guidelines describe CAPD and cognitive
cognitive abilities that have been shown to impact spoken processing as distinct and independent domains (American
communication and therefore may be relevant to clinical Academy of Audiology, 2010; ASHA, n.d.). Other frame-
assessment and treatment. works (Alles et al., 2011; Bellis & Bellis, 2015; Millett
et al., 2012) suggest that one domain influences the other.
Working memory refers to the simultaneous pro-
A systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to address
cessing and short-term storage of incoming information
the association between cognitive ability and speech-in-
(Baddeley, 1992, 2012). Listeners with higher working
noise performance and whether that association depended
memory capacity have better recognition for speech in noise
on the type of outcome measure (Dryden et al., 2017).
(Akeroyd, 2008; Rönnberg et al., 2010), speech in reverber-
Dryden and colleagues categorized speech in noise accord-
ant listening environments (Kjellberg, 2004; McCreery
ing to foreground and background signals and lexical com-
et al., 2019; Reinhart & Souza, 2016), and accented speech
plexity, and they categorized cognitive measures according
(Ingvalson et al., 2017; McLaughlin et al., 2018). Working
to primary and subdomain measures. CAP measures were
memory also contributes to variance in the perception of
not reviewed. Overall, the results from the work of Dryden
some types of hearing aid–processed speech, particularly if
et al. found an association (r = ~.3) between speech in noise
the processing substantially modifies the acoustic cues
and cognitive performance, although the strength of the
(Arehart et al., 2013; Kates et al., 2013; Lunner &
association depended on the specific category.
Sundewall-Thorén, 2007; Rallapalli et al., 2021). Some
cognitive models (Pichora-Fuller et al., 2016; Rönnberg From a practical standpoint, understanding whether
et al., 2013) theorize this occurs because working memory central auditory and cognitive processing abilities are
capacity is taxed when the listener cannot easily reconcile related has implications for auditory rehabilitation. Audi-
an altered or degraded acoustic signal with stored lexical ologists have indicated interest in—but lack of knowledge
representations. Other models (e.g., Cowan, 2008, 2010, to interpret—both CAP (Emanuel, 2002; Erickson, 2008)
2017; Oberauer, 2002; Unsworth & Spillers, 2010) explic- and cognitive processing (Raymond et al., 2020). Audiolo-
itly define the role of attention and theorize that working gists who see patients with speech-in-noise complaints that
memory is essentially a limited-capacity, short-term stor- are not accounted for by pure-tone threshold elevation
age system where attention (or other executive processes) may refer those patients for auditory processing evalua-
direct and utilize stored information. For example, in tion, cognitive follow-up, or neither, without knowledge of
Cowan’s (2010) description, attention could either fill how the two systems interact (Koerner et al., 2020). While
working memory with important, relevant items, or fill it there are reviews of subsets of this information, particularly
with distracting, irrelevant items. Empirical data show the relationships between cognitive abilities and speech in
that working memory declines with age, albeit with con- noise (e.g., Akeroyd, 2008; Dryden et al., 2017), a system-
siderable variability (Wingfield et al., 1988). In general, atic review encompassing recent data for both central audi-
the strongest empirical evidence linking working memory tory and cognitive processing could inform clinical decisions,
to speech perception is for older adults, particularly those counseling, and future research. Accordingly, the main
who also have hearing loss (Füllgrabe & Rosen, 2016). objective of this systematic review is to answer the question,
“In adults, what is the relationship—if any—between central
Because the ability to rapidly process information in
auditory processing abilities and cognitive abilities?”
the acoustic signal is expected to improve speech recogni-
tion, processing speed is often measured in cognitive hear-
ing studies. Lexical processing speed (e.g., Burleson &
Souza, 2022) may be more strongly related to speech rec-
Method
ognition than processing speed measured via generic or
The CAP constructs described by Chermak and
visual tasks (e.g., Nagaraj, 2021; Nuesse et al., 2018).
Musiek (1997; i.e., temporal, dichotic, low redundancy,
Executive or inhibitory functions are of interest to
binaural interaction, discrimination, and electrophysiol-
researchers who study speech in complex listening environ-
ogy) were used in this systematic review. Some of these
ments where the listener must focus on the target and
constructs were further divided, and additional categories
inhibit distractors. Listeners with better executive or inhib-
of auditory processing were added (e.g., spatial and other)
itory functions may be able to communicate more effec-
to more comprehensively represent the data reviewed.
tively in noise than those with poorer executive functions
(Moberly et al., 2018; Neher et al., 2011; Stenbäck et al., Cognitive measures were separated into their con-
2016; Tamati et al., 2013). struct domain or grouped by multidomain or global
298 Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research • Vol. 67 • 296–345 • January 2024

cognition. There were six construct domains used in this “duration pattern test” OR “frequency pattern test”
systematic review, grouped based on cognitive theories OR “speech in noise*” OR “frequency following
(Baddeley, 2012; Cowan, 2017; Diamond, 2013; Salthouse, response” OR “auditory electrophysiology” OR “mid-
2000): working memory (e.g., digit span), processing speed dle latency response“)) AND ((“Aged”[Mesh] OR
(e.g., Trail-Making Test-A [TMT-A]), executive/inhibitory “Middle Aged”[Mesh] OR “Aged, 80 and over”[Mesh])
processes (e.g., Stroop), fluid intelligence (e.g., reasoning), OR (“elderly” OR “adult“ OR “older”))
visual perception (e.g., visuospatial processing), and multi-
domain or global cognitive measures (e.g., Montreal Cog-
Other databases were searched with the same search
nitive Assessment [MoCA]).
terms converted to the search strategy syntax specific to
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews that platform. Gathered articles were managed using
and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed EndNote. The identification phase took place in Decem-
(Moher et al., 2009). Included in these guidelines is a 27- ber 2021. Duplicates were removed prior to Phase 2. A
item checklist that was used to ensure a robust systematic follow-up literature search was conducted in March 2023
review protocol. Following the PRISMA guidelines, four to identify any additional articles published after the ini-
phases of data collection were included: (a) identification, tial search and review.
(b) screening, (c) eligibility, and (d) inclusion.
Screening
Identification
Phase 2 of the PRISMA guidelines involves title and
Phase 1 of the PRISMA guidelines is to identify abstract screening of records identified from Phase 1.
potentially relevant articles in the existing research litera- Identification and screening of articles also occurred by
ture. Four bibliographic databases were systematically searching relevant papers’ reference lists and citation titles
searched to identify articles for this review: Scopus using the SnowGlobe program (McWeeny et al., 2021)
(Elsevier platform: 1970 to present), PubMed (MEDLINE and from suggested references by subject matter experts.
platform: 1973 to present), Web of Science (Clarivate plat- Snowglobe is a platform that reviews relevant articles on
form: 1995 to present), and PsycINFO (ProQuest plat- the topics of interest and searches the reference lists of
form: 1990 to present). In addition to subject matter these articles, as well as the studies that have cited them,
experts, medical librarians at Northwestern assisted with to help identify more records. Records were eliminated at
the search strategy development and keyword review (e.g., this phase if the title or abstract was not relevant to the
MeSH terms). Two main ideas were represented in the topics of interest. The authors of this systematic review
search strategy—terminology related to “central auditory (A.D. and P.S.) blindly screened all records for relevance
processing” and terminology related to “cognitive abili- using the online platform, Rayyan (Ouzzani et al., 2016).
ties.” The desired population for this review, adults aged Rayyan is a web-based tool that creates a repository of all
18 years or older, was also specified in the search strategy. uploaded records to be evaluated and rated blindly.
The primary search strategy was conducted in PubMed: Although not needed here, a third-party subject matter
expert was available to resolve any disagreements for
(“Cognitive Dysfunction“[Mesh] OR “Cognition Dis-
screening inclusion. That is, all conflicts of whether to
orders”[Mesh] OR “Mental Status and Dementia
include or exclude based on the title and abstract were
Tests”[Mesh] OR “Neuropsychological Tests”[Mesh])
resolved between the two authors. Once a consensus was
OR (“mild cognitive impairment” OR “mci” OR
made for all records, full-text articles were assessed for eli-
“cognitive processing*” OR “mild cognitive dysfunc-
gibility (Phase 3).
tion” OR “cognitive decline” OR “MoCA” OR
“Mini mental state” OR “montreal cognitive assess- Eligibility
ment” OR “SLUMS” OR “MMSE” OR “GPCOG”
OR “Alzheimer’s*”) AND ((“Auditory Perception” Phase 3 of the PRISMA guidelines is to determine
[Mesh] OR “Auditory Perceptual Disorders”[Mesh] eligibility. This was accomplished using the following cri-
OR “Spatial Processing”[Mesh] OR “Hearing Loss, teria: (a) population: The study included human partici-
Central”[Mesh] OR “Dichotic Listening Tests”[Mesh] pants 18+ years old; (b) main ideas assessed: The study
OR “Evoked Potentials, Auditory, Brain Stem”[Mesh] reported on a measure of CAP or auditory evoked poten-
OR “Evoked Potentials, Auditory”[Mesh]) OR (“audi- tial and assessed behavioral cognitive abilities; and (c)
tory processing*” OR “central auditory processing*” study design/publication type: The study was experimental
OR “binaural processing” OR “temporal processing” and published in a peer-reviewed journal. Other review
OR “listening effort” OR “dichotic listening*” OR studies, gray literature (e.g., theses, conference proceed-
“spatial release*” OR “masking level difference” OR ings), and studies not reported in English were excluded.
Inclusion and Data Collection auditory abilities were a primary outcome for this
review, hearing status was required to be reported to
Phase 4 of the PRISMA guidelines is inclusion and meet this quality criterion: (e) CAP and cognitive mea-
data collection based on the full text of the articles. The sures were valid and reliable. The outcome measures
authors of the systematic review (A.D. and P.S.) blindly were valid and reliable if they were a standardized test
evaluated the screened records for inclusion and recorded with published normative ranges or a published valida-
eligibility information on a data extraction document. The tion study was provided for unique lab measures, (f)
data extraction document included the following: study p value was reported, (g) effect size was reported, and
characteristics (e.g., author, title, journal, year published, (h) a power analysis was provided or the sample size was
design), sample (e.g., number of participants, participant large enough to produce valid findings given the specific
characteristics and demographics), auditory processing analysis performed. The number of “yes” responses for
assessment (e.g., what measure was used, how it was each article was summed, and the sum was used to clas-
scored, electrophysiology or behavioral), cognitive process- sify study quality. A “yes” score of 0–2 was classified as
ing ability assessed (e.g., what measure was used, how it weak, 3–5 as moderate, 6–7 as strong (modified from de
was scored), the relationship between the measures, the Wit et al., 2016), and 8 as very strong. Quality rating
relevant statistics (e.g., p values, effect sizes), and study was independently determined by each author (A.D. and
quality assessment (described below). P.S.) then compared for discrepancies. Again, a third
party could be consulted as needed to settle any unre-
The hypothesis for this systematic review was that
solved conflicts, but was not needed.
assessments of CAP and cognitive processing would be
positively correlated with one another. That is, if CAP
was impaired, cognitive processing would be poor as well.
As such, if a significant correlation was determined in an
Results
article, it was notated with a plus sign (+) on the data
Identification of Included Studies
extraction document. If no significant relationship was
determined, a tilde (~) was used to indicate the null find-
The PRISMA 2020 flow diagram for systematic
ing. Results from the data extraction document can be
reviews is shown in Figure 2. This diagram includes the
found in Appendix Table A1 and A2.
identification, screening, and included stages from stud-
Study quality assessment was conducted to critically ies identified via databases as well as through other
appraise the included studies and offer an explanation to sources. A total of 5,101 records were identified from
some of the possible limitations. ASHA offers a level of databases, and an additional 26 were added from subject
evidence (LOE) system for appraising the quality of experts and bibliography review. From the database
studies (Mullen, 2007). In the field of cognitive hearing review, 1,012 duplicates were removed, resulting in 4,089
science, it is crucial for an article to provide enough articles screened by title and abstract. From the title and
detail to be reproducible (individual-level replication) abstract review, 3,862 articles were excluded based on
and have appropriately powered analyses for group- relevance to the topic of this systematic review. Then,
level reliability (Parsons et al., 2019). The eight quality 227 articles were blindly assessed by both authors (A.D.
indicators included in the LOE system were modified and P.S.) for eligibility through a full-text review. Strict
based on the idea that reporting basic psychometrics inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied for the 227
improves the reliability of the information (Parsons from databases as well as for the 26 articles from other
et al., 2019): (a) study design, (b) assessor blinding pro- methods. During this process, 118 articles were removed
cedures, (c) sampling procedures, (d) subject informa- from the database articles and 12 were removed
tion, (e) validity and reliability of outcomes, (f) report- from the other methods articles. Across identification
ing of significance, (g) reporting precision, and (h) methods, articles were removed based on the following
intention to treat. Intention to treat was not included in exclusion criteria: no auditory measure (n = 9), no
the quality ratings because it pertains to clinical trial behavioral cognitive measure (n = 9), auditory and cog-
treatments only; instead, a category was added for sta- nitive measures not compared (n = 19), and wrong study
tistical power. A “yes” or “no” system was imple- design or publication type (n = 92), resulting in 123
mented if an article met the quality indicator standards studies. The secondary literature review conducted
for each of the eight categories. The standards for a resulted in seven additional studies for review. The same
“yes” were as follows: (a) controlled trials and cohort process was followed for inclusion, and four were
studies, (b) assessors were blinded, (c) random sampling excluded based on the auditory and cognitive measures
implemented, (d) enough information was provided not being compared. This resulted in a total of 126 arti-
about the participants to be reproducible. Because cles included for analysis.

Figure 2. Flow diagram following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines for identifying, screen-
ing, and including articles.
Characteristics of Included Studies Audiology (seven), Journal of Speech, Language, and

Hearing Research (six), and PLOS ONE (five).
The 126 articles spanned the time period 1988–2022
and included a total of 520,975 participants from 18 to The most common behavioral auditory processing
98 years old. The two study designs represented in this measure utilized was sentence recognition in speech-
systematic review were cohort (n = 52) and cross-sectional shaped noise (26 times used for comparison). The most
(n = 74). The number of articles increased with each common electrophysiologic auditory measure was the
decade. Specifically, there were three articles between 1980 latency of the P300 (50 times used for comparison). There
and 1990, six articles between 1991 and 2000, 28 articles were a large number of cognitive assessments included, so
between 2001 and 2010, 74 articles between 2011 and for the purpose of this review, we report the relationship
2020, and 15 articles in just 2021 and 2022. Participants to the six cognitive constructs (i.e., working memory, pro-
within the studies were evaluated across 24 countries: the cessing speed, executive/inhibitory processes, fluid intelli-
United States (46), Sweden (13), Italy (seven), Brazil gence, visual perception, and multidomain global cognitive
(seven), Japan (five), Germany (five), Denmark (five), measures) rather than to the assessment itself. Working
China (five), the United Kingdom (four), Poland (four), the memory included tasks or composite scores that evaluated
Netherlands (four), India (four), Australia (three), Spain verbal, auditory, short-term memory, and long-term mem-
(two), France (two), Finland (two), Turkey (one), Switzerland ory; processing speed included tasks that evaluated informa-
(one), Malaysia (one), Korea (one), Israel (one), Greece tion processing, lexical access speed, phonological process-
(one), Egypt (one), and Chile (one). The included 126 arti- ing, and verbal information processing; executive/inhibitory
cles represented 62 unique peer-reviewed journals with the processes included executive functioning and inhibition
top five being: Ear and Hearing (15), International Journal tasks; fluid intelligence included tasks that evaluated infer-
of Audiology (nine), Journal of the American Academy of ence making, abstract reasoning, nonverbal reasoning,
intellectual ability, intellectual resources, and psychomotor studies). The total numbers of significant and nonsignifi-
function; visual perception included tasks that evaluated cant relationships were tallied based on these groupings.
visual organization, visuospatial processing, and visual Hearing status was reported inconsistently across the stud-
memory; and multidomain/global cognition included multi- ies and, as such, was not considered in the analyses.
domain screeners and composites of multiple domains.
Tables 1 and 2 provide a breakdown of the number Quality of Studies
of relationships tested between central auditory and cogni-
tive measures, with behavioral and electrophysiologic cate- As described above, the potential range of study
gories represented separately. The most common cognitive quality was 0–8 based on ASHA’s LOE (Mullen, 2007).
construct was working memory (223 times used for com- For the 126 articles included in this review, the range was
parison for both behavioral and electrophysiologic between 1 and 6. The average quality rating was 4.3
Table 1. Count of significant and nonsignificant relationships between auditory behavioral constructs and cognitive measures, grouped by
the cognitive construct.
No. of sig No. of nonsig

Construct Unique studies Behavioral auditory measure correlations correlations
Working memory 58 Aided-Sentences/Modulateda 2 2
Aided-Sentences/SS — 1
Aided-Sentences/Steadya 2 1
ATTR 2 2
Beat Alignment Test 2 1
Composite AP 1 —
Composite SINa 4 —
Composite TP — 1
Consonants/VCV-shaped 1 2
CRM — 1
DDTa — 2
DDT-LFa 1 2
DDT-RFa 1 1
Dichotic Sentences Ident-LF — 1
Dichotic Speech-FRa 2 —
FPTa 2 —
Freq./Pitch Pattern Sequence — 2
Gap Detection 4 —
Harmonic Mistuning 1 —
HINTa 5 1
LPFS — 2
MBEA 1 2
MLDa 1 1
Modulation Detectiona 4 1
Phase Audiometry 2 —
QSINa 7 7
Seashore Rhythm Test 1 2
Sentences/1-talker — 1
Sentences/2-talkera 7 7
Sentences/3-talkera 2 —
Sentences/4-talker 1 —
Sentences/Babblea 4 1
Sentences/Cafeteriaa 2 —
Sentences/Fluctuating — 1
Sentences/Modulateda 3 3
Sentences/SSa 4 6
(table continues)

Table 1. (Continued).

Sentences/Steady 1 —
Sentences/Unmodulateda 2 —
Sentences/Whitea — 2
SPINa — 4
SSI-CCM — 1
SSI-ICM — 1
Stream Segregation — 1
TC Speecha 8 5
Temporal Envelope — 4
Temporal Fine Structurea 2 —
Temporal Order Identificationa 5 2
Temporal Masking 1 —
Time Discrimination 1 —
Vocoded Speech — 1
WINa 2 4
Words/Babble — 2
Words/SSa — 2
Words/White — 1
Processing speed 19 Aided-Sentences/SS 2 1
ATTR — 1
Auditory Processing Speed 1 —
Composite SIN 2 —
DDT-LFa 1 4
DDT-RF — 1
Dichotic Sentences Ident-LF 1 —
Dichotic Sentences Ident-RF — 1
Dichotic Speech-FRa 5 —
Gap Detection 2 —
ILD JND 1 —
IPD Freq. Limits 1 —
IPD JND — 1
Sentences/4 kHz — 1
Sentences/16 kHz — 1
Sentences/Babblea 2 2
Sentences/Cafeteria 1 —
Sentences/SSa 3 3
TC Speecha 4 2
Temporal Envelope 1 —
Temporal Order Identification 2 —
WIN — 1
Words/Babble 2 —
Words/White — 1
(table continues)
(SD = 1.0), suggesting moderate quality across all studies. while 75 studies were “no.” There were 7 “yes” (119 “no”)
As suggested by the average, the majority of the studies scores for blinding; 3 “yes” (123 “no”) for sampling; 97
(88.6%) were between 3 and 5. For study design, 51 stud- “yes” (29 “no”) for subjects; 80 “yes” (46 “no”) for out-
ies were a “yes,” suggesting they met the quality standard, comes; 123 “yes” (3 “no”) for significance; 114 “yes” (12

Executive/inhibitory processes 19 ATTR 1 1
Composite SINa 1 1
Consonants/VCV-shaped 1 —
DDTa — 3
DDT-LF 1 —
DDT-RF 2 1
Dichotic Sentences Ident-RF 1 —
Dichotic Speech-FR 2 —
Dichotic Speech-RF 1 —
ILD JND — 2
IPD Freq. Limits 2 —
IPD JND 2 —
LISN Low Cue 1 —
LISN Spatial Advantage 1 —
QSIN 1 —
Sentences/1-talker 1 1
Sentences/2-talkera 2 2
Sentences/Babble — 1
Sentences/SSa 2 1
SPINa 1 3
SSI-CCM — 2
SSI-ICM — 2
TC Speech 1 1
Temporal Envelopea 1 2
Temporal Fine Structure 1 —
Vocoded Speech 1 —
WIN — 1
Words/1-talker 1 —
Words/White 1 1
Fluid intelligence 8 Auditory Processing Speed 1 —
Composite SIN — 1
DDT — 1
Gap Detection 1 —
TC Speech 1 —
Temporal Order Identificationa 3 1
Vocoded Speech 1 —
(table continues)
“no”) for precision; and 63 “yes” (63 “no”) for power. See were studies that evaluated more than one measure and
Table 3 for a further breakdown. found both significant and nonsignificant relationships within
the same study. In fact, there were two studies (Bergemalm &
Relationship Between Auditory Processing Lyxell, 2005; Kamerer et al., 2019) that evaluated both
and Cognitive Abilities behavioral and electrophysiologic measures in comparison
to cognitive abilities. As a result of the overlap, many of
This systematic review set out to answer the question, the articles will be reported multiple times to include the
“In adults, what is the relationship between central auditory measures they found significant correlations with and the
processing abilities and cognitive abilities?” Note that there measures that were not found to be significant.


Visual perception 8 Auditory Processing Speed 1 —
DDTa — 2
Gap Detection 1 —
LISN Spatial Advantage 1 —
QSIN 1 —
Sentences/SS — 1
SPINa — 2
SSI-CCM — 1
SSI-ICM — 1
WIN 1 —
Words/White — 1
Multidomain/global cognition 22 ATTR 1 1
DDTa 1 1
Dichotic CV Syllables 1 —
Digits/Stationarya 3 —
Duration Discrimination 1 —
Gap Detection 1 —
GIN — 1
HINTa 3 —
ILD JND — 1
IPD Freq. Limits — 1
IPD JND — 1
LISN — 1
QSINa 1 1
Sentences/Babble 2 —
Sentences/SSa 3 —
SSI-ICMa 3 1
TC Speech 1 —
Temporal Fine Structure 1 —
Temporal Masking — 1
Temporal Order Identificationa 2 —
WIN 1 —
Words/White — 1
Note. Em dashes indicate no data. sig = significant; nonsig = nonsignificant; SS = Speech Shaped; ATTR = Adaptive Tests of Temporal
Resolution; AP = Auditory Processing; SIN = Speech in Noise; TP = Temporal Processing; VCV = Vowel–Consonant–Vowel; CRM = Coordi-
nate Response Measure; DDT = Dichotic Digits Test; LF = Left Ear Focused; RF = Right Ear Focused; FR = Free Recall; FPT = Frequency
Pattern Test; Freq. = frequency; HINT = Hearing in Noise Test; LPFS = Low Pass Filtered Speech; MBEA = Montreal Battery for Evaluation
of Amusia; MLD = Masking Level Difference; QSIN = Quick Speech in Noise Test; SPIN = Speech Perception in Noise Test; SSI = Synthetic
Sentence Identification Test; CCM = Contralateral Competing Message; ICM = Ipsilateral Competing Message; TC = Time Compressed;
WIN = Words in Noise Test; ILD = Interaural Level Difference; JND = Just Noticeable Difference; IPD = Interaural Phase Difference; LISN =
Listening in Spatialized Noise Sentence Test; GIN = Gaps in Noise.
a
Indicates relationships found in more than one study.
In total for both categories of central auditory mea- Tables 1 and 2). No conclusions were drawn if the rela-
sures (behavioral and electrophysiologic), there were 292 tionship was only represented one time, but these relation-
significant relationships and 261 nonsignificant relationships can be seen in Appendix Table A3.1
ships evaluated, regardless of quality rating. Appendix
Table A1 lists the relationships between the specific cogni- 1
There were no relationships measured in more than one study for
tive construct and behavioral central auditory measure. behavioral auditory measures in the spatial processing or other cate-
Results are provided in the following sections for the rela- gories, or ABR and N100 categories for electrophysiologic auditory
tionships found in more than one study (indicated by a in measures. As such, these categories were not included in the analyses.
Table 2. Count of significant and nonsignificant relationships between auditory electrophysiologic constructs and cognitive measures,
grouped by the cognitive construct.
Electrophysiologic auditory No. of nonsig

Construct No. of unique studies measure No. of sig correlations correlations
Working memory 18 Auditory Brainstem Response 2 —
ABR Wave 1 Amplitude — 1
ABR Speech 1 1
N100 Suppression 2 2
N200 Mean 1 —
N200 Latency* 2 —
Mismatch Negativity Amp* 1 4
Mismatch Negativity Latency 2 1
P200 Amplitude — 1
P300 Amplitude* 3 3
P300 Latency* 7 6
P300 Mean 1 —
P50 Ratio — 2
P50 Suppression* 1 4
P50 Difference — 2
Processing speed 8 Auditory Brainstem Response 3 —
ABR Wave 1 Amplitude 2 —
Mismatch Negativity Amp* — 2
Mismatch Negativity Latency — 1
N200 Amplitude 2 1
N200 Latency 3 —
P200 Amplitude 1 2
P200 Latency 1 2
P300 Amplitude* 5 1
P300 Latency* 3 2
P50 Ratio — 2
Executive/inhibitory 14 ABR Wave 1 Amplitude — 2
processes Mismatch Negativity Amp* — 2
Mismatch Negativity Latency — 1
N200 Amplitude 1 —
N200 Latency* 2 —
P200 Amplitude* 2 1
P200 Latency — 1
P300 Amplitude* 3 6
P300 Latency* 4 6
P50 Ratio — 3
P50 Suppression 2 1
Fluid intelligence 5 Auditory Brainstem Response 1 —
N200 Mean — 3
P300 Amplitude* 1 1
P300 Latency* 1 1
P300 Mean — 3
Visual perception 2 N200 Mean 1 2
P300 Amplitude 1 —
P300 Mean 2 1
P50 Ratio — 1
(table continues)

Electrophysiologic auditory No. of nonsig

Construct No. of unique studies measure No. of sig correlations correlations
Multidomain/global 23 Mismatch Negativity Amp* — 2
cognition Mismatch Negativity Latency — 1
N100 Amplitude 1 —
N100 Latency 5 —
N200 Mean 1 —
N200 Amplitude* 2 2
N200 Latency* 1 1
P200 Amplitude* 2 —
P200 Latency 1 —
P300 Amplitude* 7 7
P300 Latency* 9 11
P300 Mean 1 —
P50 Ratio* 1 3
P50 Suppression 1 —
Note. Em dashes indicate no data. sig = significant; nonsig = nonsignificant; ABR = auditory brainstem response.
*Indicates relationships found in more than one study.
The average quality rating was calculated for each reviewed, there were more significant than nonsignificant
central auditory measure category, grouped by cognitive relationships for temporal processing (19/25), altered speech
construct. These relationships are visually represented in (12/19), and speech in noise (70/126; ordered by highest per-
Figure 3. Quality is plotted as a function of the CAP mea- centage). For electrophysiologic measures of auditory pro-
sure, with behavioral CAP grouped in the left panel and cessing, there were more significant than nonsignificant
electrophysiology CAP grouped in the right panel. The spe- relationships for P200 (4/5) and N200 (7/10) only. Figure
cific cognitive constructs are shown as different symbols. 4 is further divided to show the comparison of significant
Symbol color indicates whether the relationship was signifi- relationships for studies with a total quality rating of 4
cant. For example, in the left panel, temporal CAP tests or more. Overall, altered speech declined in percentage
were more often related to cognitive processing, although from 63% to 50%, P50 increased from 22% to 50%, and
study quality varied; whereas binaural CAP tests were rarely the other measures remained relatively the same.
related to cognitive processing. In the right panel, late poten-
tials such as the P300 were more likely to be related to cog-
Behavioral Auditory Measures
nitive processing than earlier potentials such as the P50. The
When evaluating the reliability of data across multi-
following sections describe these relationships in more detail.
ple studies, it is important to consider whether enough
The percentage of significant relationships by audi- detail was provided to reproduce the sample and the num-
tory construct is aggregated in Figure 4. Across all studies ber of participants was large enough to find a generaliz-
able result. As such, a more granular analysis was con-
ducted to evaluate the studies by LOE quality rating cate-
Table 3. Distribution of study quality ratings.
gories subjects and power (see Table 4). For the studies
Cohort (N = 126) that found significant relationships between working mem-
ory and speech in noise, 28/30 (93%) had subject descrip-
Rating Value Classification tions that were reproducible and 17/30 (57%) analyses had
0 0 (0%) Weak sufficient power to support the finding. Conversely, 23/24
1 1 (0.8%) Weak (96%) of the studies that found nonsignificant findings
2 3 (2.4%) Weak had adequate subject descriptions and 10/24 (42%) had
3 22 (17.4%) Moderate adequate power. In other words, there were consistently
4 51 (40.5%) Moderate higher quality ratings for subject compared to power,
5 33 (26.2%) Moderate regardless of the cognitive construct or auditory process-
6 16 (12.7%) Strong ing ability. There were no striking differences in subject or
7 0 (0%) Strong power quality ratings between the significant and nonsig-
8 0 (0%) Very strong nificant relationships.
Figure 3. Average quality ratings of studies with relationships between auditory behavioral (left) and electrophysiologic (right) and cognitive
constructs measured in more than one study. SIN = Speech in Noise; MMN = mismatch negativity; Ex/Inhib = Executive/Inhibitory Pro-
cesses; Fluid = Fluid Intelligence; Multi = Multiple-Domains; ProcS = Processing Speed; VisP = Visual Perception; WM = Working Memory.
The number of comparisons for each behavioral CAP remaining measures had five or fewer comparisons. For the
category was tallied. For the speech in noise category, the binaural processing category, Dichotic Digits Test (DDT;
number of comparisons in decreasing size (number of com- Musiek, 1983), DDT-Left Focused, Dichotic Speech with
parisons) were sentences in speech-shaped noise (22), sen- free recall, DDT-Right Focused, and Masking Level Differ-
tences in two-talker maskers (18), Quick Speech-in-Noise ence and had nine, eight, seven, two, and two comparisons,
Test (QuickSIN; 16; Killion et al., 2004), and Speech Percep- respectively. The measure with the highest number of com-
tion in Noise Test (10; Kalikow et al., 1977). Other measures parisons in each category was chosen for further analysis.
had less than 10 comparisons. For the altered speech cate-
gory, time-compressed speech was the most commonly used
measure with 19 comparisons. The temporal processing cate- Speech in Noise
gory had 13 comparisons for temporal order tasks, and the Twenty-two total relationships were tested for sen-
tences in speech-shaped noise. Working memory: Four sig-
nificant relationships were found: reading span (Lunner,
Figure 4. Clustered column chart of the percentage of significant 2003; Schoof & Rosen, 2014) and nonword repetition
relationships between auditory and cognitive constructs. Columns
are separated by all quality ratings and ratings of 4 or more. (Millman & Mattys, 2017; Moberly et al., 2017). Six non-
MMN = mismatch negativity; QR = quality ratings. significant relationships were found: reading span (Miller
et al., 2017; Ng et al., 2014), n-back (Giroud et al., 2021;
Rosemann & Thiel, 2020), Word Auditory Recognition
and Recall Measure (Miller et al., 2017), and digit span
(Van Rooij & Plomp, 1992). Processing speed: Three sig-
nificant relationships were found: TMT-A (Ellis et al.,
2016), rhyme judgment test (Lunner, 2003), and letter
digit substitution test (Schoof & Rosen, 2014). Three non-
significant relationships were found: physical matching,
rhyme judgment test, and lexical decision making (Ng
et al., 2014). Executive/inhibitory processes: Two signifi-
cant relationships were found: TMT (Rosemann & Thiel,
2020) and TMT-B (Ellis et al., 2016). One nonsignificant
relationship was found: the Stroop test (Rosemann &
Thiel, 2020). Fluid intelligence: no relationships tested.
Visual perception: no relationships tested. Multidomain/

Table 4. Percentage of “yes” ratings for subjects and power level of evidence (LOE): behavioral.
Variable Significant Nonsignificant

Working memory
Speech in noise Subjects Power Subjects Power
28/30 (93%) 17/30 (57%) 23/24 (96%) 10/24 (42%)
Altered speech Subjects Power Subjects Power
5/5 (100%) 3/5 (60%) 3/3 (100%) 3/3 (100%)
Temporal processing Subjects Power Subjects Power
8/8 (100%) 6/8 (75%) 1/1 (100%) 1/1 (100%)
Binaural processing Subjects Power Subjects Power
4/4 (100%) 2/4 (50%) 6/7 (86%) 3/7 (43%)
Processing speed
2/4 (50%) 1/4 (25%) 3/3 (100%) 0/3 (0%)
2/2 (100%) 1/2 (50%) 2/2 (100%) 2/2 (100%)
N/A N/A N/A N/A
3/3 (100%) 1/3 (33%) 1/1 (100%) 0/1 (0%)
Executive/inhibitory processes
5/6 (83%) 3/6 (50%) 5/6 (83%) 2/6 (33%)
N/A N/A N/A N/A
1/1 (100%) 0/1 (0%) 1/1 (100%) 0/1 (0%)
N/A N/A 1/2 (50%) 0/2 (0%)
Fluid intelligence
N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A
3/3 (100%) 2/3 (67%) 1/1 (100%) 0/1 (0%)
N/A N/A N/A N/A
Visual perception
N/A N/A 2/3 (67%) 0/3 (0%)
N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A 1/2 (50%) 0/2 (0%)
(table continues)
global: Three significant relationships were found: Mini- Speech in noise, specifically sentences in speech-
Mental State Examination (MMSE; Folstein et al., 1975), shaped noise, appears to be most strongly related to
Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale (ADAS; Carvalho executive/inhibitory processes and global measures of cog-
et al., 2017), and MoCA (Castiglione et al., 2019). No nition, although the findings are mixed. For example,
nonsignificant relationships were found. both significant and nonsignificant relationships were

Multidomain/global cognition
10/12 (83%) 9/12 (75%) 1/1 (100%) 1/1 (100%)
N/A N/A N/A N/A
2/2 (100%) 2/2 (100%) N/A N/A
1/1 (100%) 0/1 (0%) 1/1 (100%) 0/1 (0%)
Note. N/A = not applicable.
found for working memory, processing speed, and Third Edition (WAIS-3) Digit Span (two and four items),
executive/inhibitory processes. The significant relationships WAIS-3 Letter Number (two and four items), WAIS-3
were in the expected direction. That is, better performance Episodic long-term memory pairing (two items only),
on the executive/inhibitory processes and better performance WAIS-3 Episodic free recall (two items only; Danielsson
on multidomain cognitive assessments were associated with et al., 2019), and digit span (Ulbrich et al., 2009). Two
better performance on sentences in speech-shaped noise. nonsignificant relationships were found: the WAIS-3 Epi-
sodic long-term memory pairing (four items only) and the
Altered Speech
WAIS-3 Episodic free recall (four items only; Danielsson
Nineteen total relationships were tested for time-
et al., 2019). Processing speed: no relationships tested.
compressed speech. Working memory: Eight significant
Executive/inhibitory processes: no relationships tested.
relationships were found: digit span tests (Bergemalm &
Fluid intelligence: Three significant relationships were
Lyxell, 2005; Cervera et al., 2009; Kim et al., 2020), read-
found: WAIS-3 Arithmetic (Danielsson et al., 2019;
ing span test (Bergemalm & Lyxell, 2005), serial recall
Humes, 2021b) and the Mosaik Test assessed monaurally
(Cervera et al., 2009), list sorting (Kamerer et al., 2019),
(Szymaszek et al., 2009). One nonsignificant relationship
listening span (Kim et al., 2020), and a composite of three
was found: the Mosaik Test assessed binaurally (Szymaszek
sequential working memory tasks (Vaughan et al., 2008).
et al., 2009). Visual perception: no relationships tested.
Five nonsignificant relationships were found: digit span
Multidomain/global: Two significant relationships were
(Fostick et al., 2013; O’Brien et al., 2021), spatial span
found: WAIS-R/3 (Humes, 2005; Humes et al., 2010). No
(O’Brien et al., 2021), n-back, and nonsequential working
nonsignificant relationships were found.
memory (Vaughan et al., 2008). Processing speed: Five
significant relationships were found: lexical decision mak- Temporal processing, specifically temporal order
ing, semantic decision making, the rhyme judgment test tasks, appears to be most strongly related to working
(Bergemalm & Lyxell, 2005), and auditory reaction time memory, fluid intelligence, and global measures of cogni-
(Vaughan et al., 2008). Two nonsignificant relationships tion, although findings show both significant and nonsig-
were found: visual reaction times (Vaughan et al., 2008) nificant relationships for working memory and fluid intel-
and the TMT-A task (O’Brien et al., 2021). Executive/ ligence. The significant relationships were in the expected
inhibitory processes: no relationships tested. Fluid intelli- direction. For example, better working memory scores,
gence: no relationships tested. Visual perception: no relation- better scores on fluid intelligence tasks, and better scores
ships tested. Multidomain/global: no relationships tested. for multidomain assessments were related to better perfor-
mance on temporal order tasks.
Altered speech, specifically time-compressed speech,
appears to be most strongly related to working memory and
Binaural Processing
processing speed, although both significant and nonsignificant
Nine total relationships were tested for the DDT.
relationships were found for each cognitive construct. The sig-
Working memory: No significant relationships were found.
nificant relationships were in the expected direction. That is,
Two nonsignificant relationships were found: Paired Associ-
better working memory scores and faster processing speed
ates Learning Test and one-back test (Ghannoum et al.,
resulted in better performance on time-compressed speech.
2018). Processing speed: no relationships tested. Executive/
Temporal Processing inhibitory processes. No significant relationships were
Thirteen total relationships were tested for temporal found. Three nonsignificant relationships were found: the
order tasks. Working memory: Five significant relation- TMT, Controlled Oral Word Association Test (Ghannoum
ships were found: the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale– et al., 2018), and the Groton Maze Learning Test (Nixon

et al., 2019). Fluid intelligence: no relationships tested. the quality of the significant and nonsignificant relation-
Visual perception: No significant relationships were found. ships between the electrophysiologic measures and cogni-
Two nonsignificant relationships were found: clock drawing tive constructs can be found in Table 5. As an example,
(Ghannoum et al., 2018) and the one card learning test 2/4 (50%) of the significant relationships between P300
(Nixon et al., 2019). Multidomain/global: One significant and working memory had adequate subject descriptions
relationship was found: the ADAS (Pinheiro et al., 2012). and 1/4 (25%) of the significant relationships had adequate
One nonsignificant relationship was found: the MoCA power. For nonsignificant relationships between P300 and
(Mukari et al., 2020). Binaural processing, as measured by working memory, 2/4 (50%) had adequate subject descrip-
the DDT, does not appear to be strongly related to any of tions and power. The subject and power quality ratings
the cognitive constructs, although there are mixed findings between the significant and nonsignificant relationships
for global measures of cognition. were not notably different, although it is important to
acknowledge that most of these comparisons were between
Electrophysiologic Auditory Measures
one and two studies.
A full breakdown of the relationships between the
cognitive constructs and specific electrophysiologic mea- The number of comparisons for each electrophysio-
sures is provided in Appendix Table A2. Results evaluating logic auditory category were tallied, and the specific
Table 5. Percentage of “yes” ratings for subjects and power level of evidence (LOE): electrophysiologic.

Working memory
MMN Subjects Power Subjects Power
1/1 (100%) 1/1 (100%) 2/3 (67%) 1/3 (33%)
P50 Subjects Power Subjects Power
0/1 (0%) 0/1 (0%) 0/1 (0%) 0/1 (0%)
N200 Subjects Power Subjects Power
1/2 (50%) 1/2 (50%) N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A
2/4 (50%) 1/4 (25%) 2/4 (50%) 2/4 (50%)
Processing speed
N/A N/A 1/2 (50%) 0/2 (0%)
N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A
1/3 (33%) 0/3 (0%) 0/2 (0%) 0/2 (0%)
N/A N/A 1/2 (50%) 0/2 (0%)
N/A N/A N/A N/A
0/2 (0%) 0/2 (0%) N/A N/A
1/2 (50%) 0/2 (0%) 0/1 (0%) 0/1 (0%)
2/5 (40%) 1/5 (20%) 0/4 (0%) 0/4 (0%)
(table continues)

Fluid intelligence
N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A
0/2 (0%) 0/2 (0%) 0/1 (0%) 0/1 (0%)
N/A N/A 1/2 (50%) 1/2 (50%)
1/1 (100%) 1/1 (100%) 0/2 (0%) 1/2 (50%)
1/2 (50%) 1/2 (50%) 1/2 (50%) 1/2 (50%)
1/2 (50%) 0/2 (0%) N/A N/A
0/9 (0%) 2/9 (22%) 2/9 (22%) 2/9 (22%)
Note. MMN = mismatch negativity; N/A = not applicable.
measures were identified. The MMN amplitude had 11 The MMN amplitude does not appear to be
comparisons, the P50 had nine comparisons (five for sup- strongly related to any of the cognitive constructs,
pression, four for ratio), the N200 had 10 comparisons although there are mixed findings for working memory.
(six for latency, four for amplitude), the P200 amplitude For this relationship, the expected direction was found:
had five comparisons, and the P300 had 87 comparisons The MMN amplitude was higher for those with better
(37 for amplitude and 50 for latency). Again, the measure performance on the spatial span.
with the highest number of comparisons in each category
P50. Five total relationships were tested for P50 sup-
was chosen for further analysis.
pression. Working memory: One significant relationship was
found: digit span (Thomas et al., 2010). Four nonsignificant
MMN
relationships were found to Wechsler memory scale tasks:
Eleven total relationships were tested for amplitude.
letter string, color pattern, visual reproduction, and verbal
Working memory: One significant relationship was found:
pair associate (Hsieh et al., 2004). Processing speed: no rela-
spatial span (Bonetti et al., 2018). Four nonsignificant rela-
tionships tested. Executive/inhibitory processes: no relation-
tionships were found: letter number sequencing (Bonetti
ships tested. Fluid intelligence: no relationships tested. Visual
et al., 2018), immediate and delayed retrieval of logical
perception: no relationships tested. Multidomain/global: no
memory, digit symbol test (Kärgel et al., 2014), and digit
relationships tested. P50 suppression does not appear to be
span (Naismith et al., 2012). Processing speed: No signifi-
strongly related to working memory, with one exception,
cant relationships were found. Two nonsignificant relation-
where the relationship was as expected, better sensory gating
ships were found: TMT-A (Kärgel et al., 2014; Naismith
was suggestive of better performance on the digit span.
et al., 2012). Executive/inhibitory processes. No significant
relationships were found. Two nonsignificant relationships N200. Six total relationships were tested for the N200
were found: TMT-B (Kärgel et al., 2014; Naismith et al., latency. Working memory: Two significant relationships
2012). Fluid intelligence: no relationships tested. Visual per- were found: the Wechsler memory scale (Bodis-Wollner
ception: no relationships tested. Multidomain/global: No sig- et al., 1995) and digit span (Pokryszko-Dragan et al.,
nificant relationships were found. Two nonsignificant rela- 2009). No nonsignificant relationships were found. Pro-
tionships were found: MoCA (Brückmann et al., 2021) and cessing speed: no relationships tested. Executive/inhibitory
Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test (Naismith et al., 2012). processes. Two significant relationships were found: TMT

(Pokryszko-Dragan et al., 2009; Stuckenschneider et al., (Gurrera et al., 2005; Stuckenschneider et al., 2020) and
2020). No nonsignificant relationships were found. Fluid verbal fluency-letter (Stuckenschneider et al., 2020). Two
intelligence: no relationships tested. Visual perception: no nonsignificant relationships were found: verbal fluency-
relationships tested. Multidomain/global: One significant category (Stuckenschneider et al., 2020) and TMT-A
relationship was found: MoCA (Stuckenschneider et al., (Dichter et al., 2006). Executive/inhibitory processes: Four
2020). One nonsignificant relationship was found: Mattis significant relationships were found: TMT-B (Dichter
Dementia Rating Scale (MDRS; Bodis-Wollner et al., 1995). et al., 2006; Gurrera et al., 2005), overall score on the
Wisconsin card sorting test (Katsarou et al., 2004), and the
The N200 latency appears to be most strongly
Wisconsin card sorting test categories completed subscale
related to working memory and executive/inhibitory pro-
(Dichter et al., 2006). Six nonsignificant relationships were
cesses. Both significant and nonsignificant relationships
found: TMT-B (Podemski et al., 2008; Stuckenschneider
were found for global measures of cognition. The signifi-
et al., 2020), Wisconsin card sorting test perseverative
cant relationships were in the expected direction. That is,
errors subscale, Tower of London, Continuous Perfor-
earlier N200 latencies were associated with better working
mance task (Dichter et al., 2006), and TMT (Pokryszko-
memory and executive/inhibitory performance.
Dragon et al., 2009). Fluid intelligence: One significant
relationship was found: Raven Coloured Progressive Matri-
P200 ces (Katsarou et al., 2004). One nonsignificant relationship
Five total relationships were tested for P200 ampli- was found: WAIS-Information (Dichter et al., 2006). Visual
tude. Working memory: no relationships tested. Processing perception: no relationships tested. Multidomain/global:
speed: no relationships tested. Executive/inhibitory pro- Nine significant relationships were found: MMSE (Marsh
cesses: Two significant relationships were found: TMT-B et al., 1990; Pokryszko-Dragan et al., 2003; Tanaka et al.,
(Nagasawa et al., 1999) P200 standard tone and TMT-B 2000), ADAS (Katada et al., 2003), WAIS (Neshige et al.,
(Stuckenschneider et al., 2020). One nonsignificant relationship 1988), MoCA (Stuckenschneider et al., 2020; Zeng et al.,
was found: P200 target tone and TMT-B (Stuckenschneider 2017), and two composites of multiple cognitive assessments
et al., 2020). Fluid intelligence: no relationships tested. (Cooray et al., 2008). Eleven nonsignificant relationships
Visual perception: no relationships tested. Multidomain/ were found: MMSE (Hayashi et al., 1993; Katada et al.,
global: Two significant relationships were found: MoCA 2003; Krishnamurthy et al., 2019; de Miranda et al., 2012;
(Oliveira et al., 2021; Stuckenschneider et al., 2020). No Podemski et al., 2008; Zeng et al., 2017), ADAS (de Miranda
nonsignificant relationships were found. et al., 2012), WAIS (Pokryszko-Dragan et al., 2009), Rey Audi-
tory Verbal Learning Test (Podemski et al., 2008; Pokryszko-
P200 amplitude appears to be most strongly related
Dragan et al., 2009), and MDRS (Bodis-Wollner et al., 1995).
to executive/inhibitory processes and global measures of
cognition, although the findings were mixed. That is, both The P300 latency appears to be most strongly
significant and nonsignificant relationships were found for related to working memory and processing speed, although
executive/inhibitory processes. The significant relationships the findings are mixed. For example, both significant and
were in the expected direction. Higher P200 amplitudes nonsignificant relationships were found for working mem-
were associated with better performance on the TMT-B ory, processing speed, executive/inhibitory processes, fluid
and the MoCA. intelligence, and global measures of cognition. For the sig-
nificant relationships, the expected direction was deter-
mined. That is, earlier P300 latency was associated with
P300
better scores on the cognitive constructs.
The P300 latency was evaluated 50 times, 24 were
significant relationships and 26 were nonsignificant.
Working memory: Seven significant relationships were
found: digit symbol (Gurrera et al., 2005; Portin et al., Discussion
2000), digit span (Gurrera et al., 2005), digit span forward
and backwards (Volpato et al., 2010), prose memory This systematic review sought to answer, “In adults,
immediate and delayed recall (Volpato et al., 2010), and what is the relationship between central auditory process-
dot location recall (Dichter et al., 2006). Six nonsignificant ing and cognitive abilities?” In order to address this ques-
relationship was found: prose memory immediate and tion comprehensively, both behavioral and electrophysio-
delayed recall (Portin et al., 2000), digit span (Dichter logic CAP measures were considered for evaluation. There
et al., 2006; Katsarou et al., 2004; Portin et al., 2000), is no single answer from the literature as to whether CAP
digit symbol (Katsarou et al., 2004), and the Wechsler and cognitive abilities are related. Indeed, this review
memory scale (Bodis-Wollner et al., 1995). Processing highlights that lack of consensus, such that each of the
speed: Three significant relationships were found: TMT-A behavioral and electrophysiologic constructs demonstrated
both significant and nonsignificant correlations with cog- executive/inhibitory processes, the speech-in-noise category
nitive abilities. Findings must also be qualified by noting as a whole did not (13 significant compared to 15 nonsig-
that some of the studies were of relatively low quality par- nificant). The finding that speech in noise was not signifi-
ticularly with regard to number of subjects and adequate cantly related to executive/inhibitory processes is surpris-
statistical power to support results. However, we can draw ing because listening to speech in noise requires inhibiting
conclusions from those relationships that were more often the background noise to some degree. However, the
found to be significant. speech tests reviewed in this review article may have
underrepresented the executive/inhibitory skills used to lis-
The individual CAP constructs that were more often
ten in realistic noisy situations. That is, in the speech-in-
than not related to cognitive abilities across the reviewed
noise tests typically used in clinical or experimental set-
studies were temporal processing (76%), altered speech
tings, the listener’s attention is directed to a single talker
(63%), and speech in noise (56%). Auditory temporal pro-
who produces speech (sentences) at predictable intervals,
cessing is crucial to speech recognition and is processed
usually with similar syntactic structure and with the
via the neural networks and circuitry of the auditory cor-
talker’s voice at an audible level over a relatively constant
tex (Mauk & Buonomano, 2004). It is a reasonable con-
noise level. We can speculate that in a realistic scenario
clusion that temporal processing would be related to cog-
with more distractions that occur at unpredictable times
nition (i.e., working memory, fluid intelligence, and global
and perhaps with the need to direct attention to different
measures of cognition, as shown in the studies reviewed).
signals at different times, executive/inhibitory processes
Altered speech was significantly related to working could play a larger role.
memory and processing speed. When speech is altered, such
With regard to electrophysiologic measures of CAP,
as with time compression, the listener must actively fill in
the constructs that were more often than not related to
missed information or reconcile aberrant acoustic cues in
cognitive abilities were P200 (80%) and N200 (70%). The
order to interpret information correctly. To be efficient and
N200 significant relationships were for working memory,
accurate at such a task, individuals also need to inhibit the
executive/inhibitory processes, and multidomain constructs,
irrelevant “noise” in the stimuli or background noise to
while the significant relationships for the P200 were for
make sense of the target. This, logically, will require more
global measures of cognition. Although there were more
time to process than nonaltered speech and will require tap-
significant than nonsignificant relationships for the P200
ping into one’s phonological understanding of language
amplitude and executive/inhibitory processes, the P200 cate-
(Wagner & Torgesen, 1987) and activating working mem-
gory including amplitude and latency had an even number
ory in order to reconstruct degraded input or resolve per-
of significant and nonsignificant relationships (2 and 2).
ceptual conflicts (e.g., Rönnberg et al., 2010, 2013).
The P200 is a mid-latency evoked potential and a compo-
Speech in some types of background noise was nent of the MLR, which has an activation site distributed
shown to have significant relationships to cognitive con- around the secondary auditory cortex (Golob & Starr,
structs, specifically the constructs of working memory, 2000). One possible explanation for this relationship is that
processing speed, and multidomain composites. During the N200/P200 reflects activity in the thalamus, a brain
speech-in-noise tests such as QuickSIN (Killion et al., region that serves as a relay between sensory inputs and
2004), individuals must engage working memory, at least higher cortical areas involved in executive functioning. The
to some degree, in order to accurately recall the target thalamus has been shown to play a critical role in atten-
after it ends. In previous work, the strongest relationships tional control and working memory, and dysfunction in
with working memory were for sentences in modulated this region has been associated with executive dysfunction
noise (e.g., Lunner & Sundewall-Thoren, 2007; Ohlenforst in various neurological and psychiatric disorders (Gomot &
et al., 2016). This may be because the process of extract- Giard, 2007; Mitchell & Chakraborty, 2013). Therefore,
ing and assembling spectral and/or temporal glimpses of the N200 and/or P200 may provide a useful biomarker for
the target requires working memory to a greater extent than investigating the neural mechanisms underlying executive
speech in constant-amplitude noise, which has a more con- functioning and their relationship to thalamic activity.
stant spectro-temporal structure. Individuals with poorer
While a detailed discussion of the mechanisms
processing speed would also presumably have poorer
underlying the relationships between CAP and cognition
speech recognition. Indeed, listeners with hearing loss are
is beyond the scope of this review, it sparks curiosity
cognizant that part of listening in noise includes “keeping
regarding how underlying changes in neural responses
up” with a rapid stream of information and that doing so is
might influence both types of higher level processes. Some
fatiguing (Preminger & Laplante-Levesque, 2014).
authors have proposed that neural changes could explain
Although sentences in speech-shaped noise had individual declines in processing (e.g., Pichora-Fuller
more significant than nonsignificant relationships with et al., 2007; Salthouse et al., 1998; Uchida et al., 2019). It

is plausible that such changes could exert significant patients and audiologists react positively to inclusion of
effects on temporal processing, as measured in CAP tests, such topics as part of the evaluation and treatment pro-
as well as on measures of neural physiology, such as the cess (Broome et al., 2023; Cavitt & Hill, 2022).
P200/N200. These changes may be especially relevant for
The relationship between auditory and cognitive
older listeners, who were included in some, but not all, of
abilities is a critical piece of information to add to the lit-
the reviewed studies. Indeed, Salthouse et al. (1998) sug-
erature on brain health. Understanding this relationship
gests that the neural mechanisms associated with timing
can inform future research endeavors on the topic of cog-
(such as temporal processing) play a fundamental role in
nitive decline and dementia, as well as at the individual
the speed at which an individual can execute and process
level for clinical management plans. Audiologists and
a task, an aspect influenced by age-related differences.
researchers alike agree that the audiogram (i.e., determin-
Finally, quality ratings for each study were assessed ing pure-tone thresholds), a measure used across all hear-
separately for their significant and nonsignificant relation- ing clinics in determining candidacy for management
ships. No distinct patterns were observed, and most of the of auditory dysfunction, is not cognitively demanding.
studies regardless of whether they showed significant or Herein lies the problem—our lives in the real world, out-
nonsignificant findings were rated as mid-quality. This is side of the soundproofed booths, are cognitively demand-
consistent with previous observations (e.g., Cox, 2005; ing. However, auditory abilities beyond the pure-tone
Hahs-Vaughn & Nye, 2008) that many studies in this liter- audiogram, such as those described in this review, are not
ature rely on lower quality designs. routinely being measured. It is clear that there are aspects
of our auditory and cognitive networks that intertwine
and depend, at least in part, on one another.
Clinical Relevance
As such, this review brings light to what many
Because adults are less likely to have been evaluated already know and accept. Creating a management plan
or diagnosed with CAPD compared to children (Agrawal for a patient without understanding the role of specific
et al., 2021; Hind et al., 2011), an audiologist may be abilities (auditory or cognitive) does not represent the indi-
unaware that CAPD is a potential source of communica- vidual well and is not fully utilizing patient-centered care.
tion difficulties. In addition, although there is professional
interest in assessing the cognitive abilities that contribute
to overall communication, such assessments are not com- Conclusions
mon in audiology practice (Anderson et al., 2018). Recent
calls to action to revise the auditory battery and assess In this systematic review, our objective was to
individual abilities beyond sound sensitivity (e.g., Fitzgerald address the question, “In adults, what is the relationship
et al., 2023; Herbert et al., 2023; Sanchez-Lopez et al., between central auditory processing abilities and cognitive
2021) may lead to a more complete understanding of indi- abilities?” The CAP categories considered by this review
vidual abilities and their aggregate effect on communica- included speech in noise, altered speech, temporal process-
tion. At minimum, cognitive and central auditory mea- ing, binaural processing, and electrophysiology processing.
sures should be considered when appropriate remediation Cognitive measures included working memory, processing
(e.g., well-fit hearing aids and/or hearing assistive technol- speed, executive/inhibitory processes, fluid intelligence,
ogy) does not improve communication for listeners whose visual perception, and multidomain measures. Across a
audiometric data indicate that audibility concerns have comprehensive set of reviewed papers employing different
been addressed. An individualized assessment that includes approaches, research designs, and findings, the most
CAP and cognitive tests could also help direct aural habili- robust relationships emerged between speech perception in
tation. Currently, the most-used training programs focus on noisy conditions and either executive/inhibitory or multi-
either central auditory (Cameron & Dillon, 2011; Sweetow domain cognitive abilities. Similarly, altered (especially
& Sabes, 2006; Weihing et al., 2015) or cognitive abilities time-compressed) speech exhibited strong relationships
(George & Whitehouse, 2011). Some remediation programs with working memory or processing speed. Auditory tem-
propose to recruit cognitive processes as a means of com- poral order tasks showed significant relationships with
pensating for CAP deficits (Chermak, 1998), an approach working memory, fluid intelligence, or multidomain cogni-
that may fail if the patient has (unrecognized) relatively tive measures. In the context of electrophysiology, specifi-
poor cognitive abilities. Even when the remediation plan is cally N200 and P300 latency, the most consistent relation-
more general and targeted to improving the communication ships were observed between cortical evoked potentials
environment rather than training specific abilities, counsel- and working memory or executive/inhibitory processes.
ing patients about their own CAP and cognitive process- The variety of experimental approaches and the diversity
ing abilities may allow more individualized support. Both of findings emphasize the intricate interplay between
auditory and cognitive abilities, particularly in communi- processing features in hearing aids for adults. Journal of the
cation scenarios characterized by noise or distortion, espe- American Academy of Audiology, 29(2), 118–124. https://doi.
org/10.3766/jaaa.16107
cially in older adults or those who have hearing loss. The Anderson, S., White-Schwoch, T., Parbery-Clark, A., & Kraus, N.
results also highlight the pivotal role of higher level pro- (2013). A dynamic auditory-cognitive system supports speech-
cesses in speech recognition and underscore the need to in-noise perception in older adults. Hearing Research, 300,
assess individual listener abilities beyond the constraints of 18–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heares.2013.03.006
the pure-tone audiogram. Anzivino, R., Conti, G., Di Nardo, W., Fetoni, A. R., Picciotti,
P. M., Marra, C., Guglielmi, V., Fortunato, S., Forli, F.,
Paludetti, G., & Berrettini, S. (2019). Prospective evaluation
of cognitive functions after rehabilitation with cochlear
Acknowledgments implant or hearing aids: Preliminary results of a multicentric
study on elderly patients. American Journal of Audiology,
This work was partially supported by funding from 28(3S), 762–774. https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_AJA-HEAL18-
18-0176
the National Institutes of Health (R01 DC012289 to Arehart, K. H., Souza, P., Baca, R., & Kates, J. M. (2013).
P. Souza). The authors thank Maya Reid and Kendra Working memory, age, and hearing loss: Susceptibility to
Marks for their assistance in preparing the review article. hearing aid distortion. Ear and Hearing, 34(3), 251–260.
https://doi.org/10.1097/AUD.0b013e318271aa5e
The views expressed in this article are those of the Arehart, K. H., Souza, P., Kates, J. M., Lunner, T., & Pedersen,
authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy of M. S. (2015). Relationship among signal fidelity, hearing loss,
the Department of Defense (DoD) of the U.S. Government. and working memory for digital noise suppression. Ear and Hear-
The identification of specific products or scientific instrumen- ing, 36, 505–516. https://doi.org/10.1097/AUD.0000000000000173
Baddeley, A. (1992). Working memory. Science, 255(5044), 556–
tation is considered an integral part of the scientific endeavor 559. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1736359
and does not constitute endorsement or implied endorsement Baddeley, A. (2012). Working memory: Theories, models, and
on the part of the authors, DoD, or any component agency. controversies. Annual Review of Psychology, 63(1), 1–29.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100422
Bamiou, D.-E., Werring, D., Cox, K., Stevens, J., Musiek, F. E.,
Brown, M. M., & Luxon, L. M. (2012). Patient-reported
Data Availability Statement auditory functions after stroke of the central auditory
pathway. Stroke, 43(5), 1285–1289. https://doi.org/10.1161/
The authors confirm that the data supporting the STROKEAHA.111.644039
findings of this study are available within this article and Bellis, T. J., & Bellis, J. D. (2015). Chapter 30—Central auditory
Supplemental Material S1. processing disorders in children and adults. In M. J. Aminoff,
F. Boller, & D. F. Swaab (Eds.), Handbook of clinical neurol-
ogy (Vol. 129, pp. 537–556). Elsevier.
Bergemalm, P. O., & Lyxell, B. (2005). Appearances are decep-
References tive? Long-term cognitive and central auditory sequelae from
closed head injury. ¿Las apariencias engañan? Secuelas cogniti-
Agrawal, D., Dritsakis, G., Mahon, M., Mountjoy, A., & Bamiou, vas y auditivas centrales a largo plazo después de un trauma-
D. E. (2021). Experiences of patients with auditory processing tismo cráneo-encefálico cerrado. International Journal of Audi-
disorder in getting support in health, education, and work set- ology, 44(1), 39–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/14992020400022546
tings: Findings from an online survey. Frontiers in Neurology, Biagianti, B., Fisher, M., Neilands, T. B., Loewy, R., &
12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2021.607907 Vinogradov, S. (2016). Engagement with the auditory process-
Akeroyd, M. A. (2008). Are individual differences in speech ing system during targeted auditory cognitive training medi-
reception related to individual differences in cognitive ability? A ates changes in cognitive outcomes in individuals with schizo-
survey of twenty experimental studies with normal and hearing- phrenia. Neuropsychology, 30(8), 998–1008. https://doi.org/10.
impaired adults. International Journal of Audiology, 47(Suppl. 2), 1037/neu0000311
S53–S71. https://doi.org/10.1080/14992020802301142 Biswas, A., Hegde, S., Jhunjhunwala, K., & Pal, P. K. (2016).
Alles, R., Bamiou, D., Batchelor, L., Campbell, N.G., Canning, D., Two sides of the same coin: Impairment in perception of tem-
Grant, P., Luxon, L., Moore, D., Murray, P., Nairn, S., Rosen, poral components of rhythm and cognitive functions in Par-
S., Sirimanna, T., Treharne, D., & Wakeham, K. (2011). BSA kinson’s disease. Basal Ganglia, 6(1), 63–70. https://doi.org/10.
position statement: Auditory processing disorder (APD). 1016/j.baga.2015.12.001
American Academy of Audiology. (2010). Diagnosis, treatment and Bodis-Wollner, I., Borod, J. C., Cicero, B., Haywood, C. S.,
management of children and adults with central auditory processing Raskin, S., Mylin, L., Sliwinski, M., Falk, A., & Yahr, M. D.
disorder. https://www.audiology.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/ (1995). Modality dependent changes in event-related poten-
CAPD-Guidelines-8-2010-1.pdf_539952af956c79.73897613-1.pdf tials correlate with specific cognitive functions in nondemen-
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (n.d.). Central ted patients with Parkinson’s disease. Journal of Neural Trans-
auditory processing disorder [Practice Portal]. Retrieved mission - Parkinson’s Disease and Dementia Section, 9(2), 197–
December 4, 2022 from www.asha.org/Practice-Portal/Clinical- 209. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02259661
Topics/Central-Auditory-Processing-Disorder/ Bonetti, L., Haumann, N. T., Brattico, E., Kliuchko, M., Vuust,
Anderson, M., Arehart, K. H., & Souza, P. (2018). Survey of cur- P., Särkämö, T., & Näätänen, R. (2018). Auditory sensory
rent practice in the fitting and fine-tuning of common signal- memory and working memory skills: Association between

frontal MMN and performance scores. Brain Research, 1700, Cowan, N. (2010). The magical mystery four: How is working
86–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2018.06.034 memory capacity limited, and why? Current Directions in
Broome, E. E., Tannirandorn, P., Straus, J., Beale, P., Heffernan, Psychological Science, 19(1), 51–57. https://doi.org/10.1177/
E., Dening, T., & Henshaw, H. (2023). Patient perceptions of 0963721409359277
cognitive screening in adult audiology services: A qualitative Cowan, N. (2017). The many faces of working memory and
exploration. Frontiers in Neurology, 14, Article 567. https:// short-term storage. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 24(4),
doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2023.1143128 1158–1170. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-016-1191-6
Brückmann, M., Pagliarin, K. C., & Garcia, M. V. (2021). Mis- Cox, C. L., McCoy, S. L., Tun, P. A., & Wingfield, A. (2008).
match negativity in older adults and its relationship with the cog- Monotic auditory processing disorder tests in the older adult
nitive and behavioral aspects of central auditory processing. population. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology,
Clinics, 76, Article e1830. https://doi.org/10.6061/clinics/2021/e1830 19(04), 293–308. https://doi.org/10.3766/jaaa.19.4.3
Burleson, A. M., & Souza, P. E. (2022). Cognitive and linguistic Cox, R. M. (2005). Evidence-based practice in audiology. Journal
abilities and perceptual restoration of missing speech: Evi- of the American Academy of Audiology, 16(7), 408–409.
dence from online assessment. Frontiers in Psychology, 13. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0040-1715694
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1059192 Danielsson, H., Humes, L. E., & Rönnberg, J. (2019). Different
Cahana-Amitay, D., Spiro, A., III, Sayers, J. T., Oveis, A. C., associations between auditory function and cognition depend-
Higby, E., Ojo, E. A., Duncan, S., Goral, M., Hyun, J., ing on type of auditory function and type of cognition. Ear
Albert, M. L., & Obler, L. K. (2016). How older adults use and Hearing, 40(5), 1210–1219. https://doi.org/10.1097/AUD.
cognition in sentence-final word recognition. Aging, Neuropsy- 0000000000000700
chology, and Cognition, 23(4), 418–444. https://doi.org/10. Davidson, A., Musiek, F., Fisher, J. M., & Marrone, N. (2021).
1080/13825585.2015.1111291 Investigating the role of auditory processing abilities in long-
Cameron, S., & Dillon, H. (2011). Development and evaluation term self-reported hearing aid outcomes among adults age
of the LiSN & learn auditory training software for deficit- 60+ years. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology,
specific remediation of binaural processing deficits in children: 32(7), 405–419. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0041-1728771
Preliminary findings. Journal of the American Academy of de Miranda, E. C., Pinheiro, M. M. C., Pereira, L. D., & Iorio,
Audiology, 22(10), 678–696. https://doi.org/10.3766/jaaa.22.10.6 M. C. M. (2012). Correlation of the P300 evoked potential in
Carvalho, L. M. A. D., Gonsalez, E. C. D. M., & Iorio, depressive and cognitive aspects of aging. Brazilian Journal of
M. C. M. (2017). Speech perception in noise in the elderly: Otorhinolaryngology, 78(5), 83–89. https://doi.org/10.5935/
Interactions between cognitive performance, depressive symp- 1808-8694.20120013
toms, and education. Brazilian Journal of Otorhinolaryngol- de Wit, E., Visser-Bochane, M. I., Steenbergen, B., van Dijk, P.,
ogy, 83(2), 195–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjorl.2016.03.017 van der Schans, C. P., & Luinge, M. R. (2016). Characteristics
Castiglione, A., Casa, M., Gallo, S., Sorrentino, F., Dhima, S., of auditory processing disorders: A systematic review. Journal
Cilia, D., Lovo, E., Gambin, M., Previato, M., Colombo, S., of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 59(2), 384–413.
Caserta, E., Gheller, F., Giacomelli, C., Montino, S., Limongi, https://doi.org/10.1044/2015_JSLHR-H-15-0118
F., Brotto, D., Gabelli, C., Trevisi, P., Bovo, R., & Martini, A. Delano, P. H., Belkhiria, C., Vergara, R. C., Martínez, M.,
(2019). Correspondence between cognitive and audiological Leiva, A., Andrade, M., Marcenaro, B., Torrente, M., Maass,
evaluations among the elderly: A preliminary report of an J. C., & Delgado, C. (2020). Reduced suprathreshold auditory
audiological screening model of subjects at risk of cognitive nerve responses are associated with slower processing speed
decline with slight to moderate hearing loss. Frontiers in Neu- and thinner temporal and parietal cortex in presbycusis.
roscience, 13, Article 1279. PLOS ONE, 15(5), Article e0233224. https://doi.org/10.1371/
Cavitt, K., & Hill, H. (2022). Ear-to-brain: The role of cognition in journal.pone.0233224
evidence-based audiology. Audiology Online. Retrieved from Diamond, A. (2013). Executive functions. Annual Review of
April 15, 2023, https://www.audiologyonline.com/audiology- Psychology, 64(1), 135–168. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-
ceus/course/ear-to-brain-role-cognition-36136 psych-113011-143750
Cervera, T. C., Soler, M. J., Dasi, C., & Ruiz, J. C. (2009). Dichter, G. S., van der Stelt, O., Boch, J. L., & Belger, A. (2006).
Speech recognition and working memory capacity in young- Relations among intelligence, executive function, and P300
elderly listeners: Effects of hearing sensitivity. Canadian Jour- event related potentials in schizophrenia. The Journal of Ner-
nal of Experimental Psychology, 63(3), 216–226. https://doi. vous and Mental Disease, 194(3), 179–187. https://doi.org/10.
org/10.1037/a0014321 1097/01.nmd.0000202490.97425.de
Chermak, G. D. (1998). Managing central auditory processing dis- Dryden, A., Allen, H. A., Henshaw, H., & Heinrich, A. (2017).
orders: Metalinguistic and metacognitive approaches [Paper The association between cognitive performance and speech-in-
presentation]. Seminars in Hearing. noise perception for adult listeners: A systematic literature
Chermak, G. D., Musiek, F. E. (1997). Central auditory process- review and meta-analysis. Trends in Hearing, 21. https://doi.
ing disorders: New perspectives. Singular. org/10.1177/2331216517744675
Chermak, G. D., & Musiek, F. E. (2011). Neurological substrate of Ellis, R. J., Molander, P., Rönnberg, J., Lyxell, B., Andersson, G.,
central auditory processing deficits in children. Current Pediatric & Lunner, T. (2016). Predicting speech-in-noise recognition
Reviews, 7(3), 241–251. https://doi.org/10.2174/157339611796548393 from performance on the trail making test: Results from a
Cooray, G. K., Maurex, L., & Brismar, T. (2008). Cognitive large-scale internet study. Ear and Hearing, 37(1), 73–79.
impairment correlates to low auditory event-related potential https://doi.org/10.1097/aud.0000000000000218
amplitudes in type 1 diabetes. Psychoneuroendocrinology, Emanuel, D. C. (2002). The auditory processing battery: Survey of
33(7), 942–950. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psyneuen.2008.04.013 common practices. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology,
Cowan, N. (2008). What are the differences between long-term, 13(2), 093–117. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0040-1715952
short-term, and working memory? Progress in Brain Research, Emanuel, D. C., Ficca, K. N., & Korczak, P. (2011). Survey of
169, 323–338. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-6123(07)00020-9 the diagnosis and management of auditory processing disorder.
American Journal of Audiology, 20(1), 48–60. https://doi.org/10. a group of cognitively impaired individuals. Hearing, Balance
1044/1059-0889(2011/10-0019) and Communication, 16(3), 145–154. https://doi.org/10.1080/
Erickson, K. (2008). CAP testing and interpreting 101: Recom- 21695717.2018.1490117
mendations for audiologists. Audiology Online. Retrieved Giroud, N., Keller, M., & Meyer, M. (2021). Interacting effects of
April 15, 2023, from https://www.audiologyonline.com/articles/ frontal lobe neuroanatomy and working memory capacity to
c-apd-testing-and-interpreting-896 older listeners’ speech recognition in noise. Neuropsychologia,
Fausti, S. A., Wilmington, D. J., Gallun, F. J., Myers, P. J., & 158, Article 107892. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.
Henry, J. A. (2009). Auditory and vestibular dysfunction asso- 2021.107892
ciated with blast-related traumatic brain injury. Journal of Givens, G. D., Arnold, T., & Hume, W. G. (1998). Auditory pro-
Rehabilitation Research and Development, 46(6), 797–810. cessing skills and hearing aid satisfaction in a sample of older
https://doi.org/10.1682/JRRD.2008.09.0118 adults. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 86(3), 795–801. https://
Fitzgerald, M. B., Gianakas, S. P., Qian, Z. J., Losorelli, S., & doi.org/10.2466/pms.1998.86.3.795
Swanson, A. C. (2023). Preliminary guidelines for replacing Glyde, H., Cameron, S., Dillon, H., Hickson, L., & Seeto, M.
word-recognition in quiet with speech in noise assessment in (2013). The effects of hearing impairment and aging on spatial
the routine audiologic test battery. Ear and Hearing, 44(6), processing. Ear and Hearing, 34(1), 15–28. https://doi.org/10.
1548–1561. https://doi.org/10.1097/AUD.0000000000001409 1097/aud.0b013e3182617f94
Folmer, R. L., Vachhani, J. J., & Riggins, A. (2021). Electrophys- Golob, E. J., & Starr, A. (2000). Age-related qualitative differ-
iological evidence of auditory and cognitive processing deficits ences in auditory cortical responses during short-term mem-
in Parkinson disease. BioMed Research International, 2021, ory. Clinical Neurophysiology, 111(12), 2234–2244. https://doi.
Article 6610908. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/6610908 org/10.1016/S1388-2457(00)00468-5
Folstein, M. F., Folstein, S. E., & McHugh, P. R. (1975). Mini- Gomot, M., & Giard, M. H. (2007). N200, P300 and MMN in
mental state: A practical method for grading the cognitive state autistic adults: Evidence for a neural dysfunction in error
of patients for the clinician. Journal of Psychiatric Research, monitoring. NeuroReport, 18(5), 463–467.
12(3), 189–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3956(75)90026-6 Gordon-Salant, S., & Cole, S. S. (2016). Effects of age and work-
Foo, C., Rudner, M., Rönnberg, J., & Lunner, T. (2007). Recog- ing memory capacity on speech recognition performance in
nition of speech in noise with new hearing instrument com- noise among listeners with normal hearing. Ear and Hearing,
pression release settings requires explicit cognitive storage and 37(5), 593–602. https://doi.org/10.1097/aud.0000000000000316
processing capacity. Journal of the American Academy of Gurrera, R. J., Salisbury, D. F., O’Donnell, B. F., Nestor, P. G.,
Audiology, 18(07), 618–631. https://doi.org/10.3766/jaaa.18.7.8 & McCarley, R. W. (2005). Auditory P3 indexes personality
Fostick, L., Ben-Artzi, E., & Babkoff, H. (2013). Aging and traits and cognitive function in healthy men and women. Psy-
speech perception among the elderly: beyond hearing thresh- chiatry Research, 133(2–3), 215–228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
old and cognitive ability. Journal of Basic and Clinical Physi- psychres.2004.09.009
ology and Pharmacology, 24, 175–183. https://doi.org/10.1515/ Guthrie, O. W., Xu, H., Wong, B. A., McInturf, S. M., Reboulet,
jbcpp-2013-0048 J. E., Ortiz, P. A., & Mattie, D. R. (2014). Exposure to low
Fuente, A., & McPherson, B. (2007). Central auditory processing levels of jet-propulsion fuel impairs brainstem encoding of
effects induced by solvent exposure. International Journal of stimulus intensity. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental
Occupational Medicine and Environmental Health, 20(3), 271– Health, Part A, 77(5), 261–280. https://doi.org/10.1080/
279. https://doi.org/10.2478/v10001-007-0030-4 15287394.2013.862892
Füllgrabe, C., Moore, B. C., & Stone, M. A. (2015). Age-group Hahs-Vaughn, D. L., & Nye, C. (2008). Understanding high qual-
differences in speech identification despite matched audiome- ity research designs for speech language pathology. Evidence-
trically normal hearing: Contributions from auditory temporal Based Communication Assessment and Intervention, 2(4), 218–
processing and cognition. Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience, 6, 224. https://doi.org/10.1080/17489530802646323
Article 347. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnagi.2014.00347 Hällgren, M., Larsby, B., Lyxell, B., & Arlinger, S. (2001). Cog-
Füllgrabe, C., & Rosen, S. (2016). On the (un)importance of nitive effects in dichotic speech testing in elderly persons. Ear
working memory in speech-in-noise processing for listeners and Hearing, 22(2), 120–129. https://doi.org/10.1097/00003446-
with normal hearing thresholds. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 200104000-00005
Article 1268. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01268 Hamilton, H. K., Williams, T. J., Ventura, J., Jasperse, L. J.,
Gallun, F. J., Lewis, M. S., Folmer, R. L., Diedesch, A. C., Owens, E. M., Miller, G. A., Subotnik, K. L., Nuechterlein,
Kubli, L. R., McDermott, D. J., Walden, T. C., Fausti, S. A., K. H., & Yee, C. M. (2018). Clinical and cognitive signifi-
Lew, H. L., & Leek, M. R. (2012). Implications of blast expo- cance of auditory sensory processing deficits in schizophrenia.
sure for central auditory function: A review. Journal of Reha- American Journal of Psychiatry, 175(3), 275–283. https://doi.
bilitation Research and Development, 49(7), 1059–1074. https:// org/10.1176/appi.ajp.2017.16111203
doi.org/10.1682/JRRD.2010.09.0166 Hayashi, R., Hanyu, N., Shindo, M., Tamaru, F., & Yanagisawa,
Gates, G. A., Anderson, M. L., McCurry, S. M., Feeney, M. P., N. (1993). Event-related potentials, reaction time, and cogni-
& Larson, E. B. (2011). Central auditory dysfunction as a har- tive state in patients with Parkinson’s disease. Advances in
binger of Alzheimer dementia. Archives of Otolaryngology– Neurology, 60, 429–433.
Head & Neck Surgery, 137(4), 390–395. https://doi.org/10. Helfer, K. S., & Freyman, R. L. (2014). Stimulus and listener fac-
1001/archoto.2011.28 tors affecting age-related changes in competing speech percep-
George, D. R., & Whitehouse, P. J. (2011). Marketplace of mem- tion. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 136(2),
ory: What the brain fitness technology industry says about us 748–759. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.4887463
and how we can do better. The Gerontologist, 51(5), 590–596. Herbert, C. J., Kronenberger, W. G., Wolfert, K., Nelson, R. F.,
https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnr042 Yates, C. W., & Pisoni, D. B. (2023). Extraordinary speech and
Ghannoum, M. T., Shalaby, A. A., Farghaly, M., Hamdy, M., & language outcomes after auditory brainstem implantation: Guidance
Hamdy, H. S. (2018). Central auditory processing findings in from a case study. American Journal of Audiology, 32(4), 761–778.

Hind, S. E., Haines-Bazrafshan, R., Benton, C. L., Brassington, hearing loss. American Journal of Audiology, 28(4), 843–856.
W., Towle, B., & Moore, D. R. (2011). Prevalence of clinical https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_AJA-19-0063
referrals having hearing thresholds within normal limits. Inter- Kärgel, C., Sartory, G., Kariofillis, D., Wiltfang, J., & Müller,
national Journal of Audiology, 50(10), 708–716. https://doi.org/ B. W. (2014). Mismatch negativity latency and cognitive func-
10.3109/14992027.2011.582049 tion in schizophrenia. PLOS ONE, 9(4), Article e84536.
Hommet, C., Mondon, K., Berrut, G., Gouyer, Y., Isingrini, M., https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0084536
Constans, T., & Belzung, C. (2010). Central auditory process- Katada, E., Sato, K., Sawaki, A., Dohi, Y., Ueda, R., & Ojika,
ing in aging: The dichotic listening paradigm. The Journal of K. (2003). Long-term effects of donepezil on P300 auditory
Nutrition, Health & Aging, 14(9), 751–756. https://doi.org/10. event-related potentials in patients with Alzheimer’s disease.
1007/s12603-010-0097-7 Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry and Neurology, 16(1), 39–43.
Hoover, E. C., Souza, P. E., & Gallun, F. J. (2017). Auditory https://doi.org/10.1177/0891988702250561
and cognitive factors associated with speech-in-noise com- Kates, J. M., Arehart, K. H., & Souza, P. E. (2013). Integrating
plaints following mild traumatic brain injury. Journal of the cognitive and peripheral factors in predicting hearing-aid pro-
American Academy of Audiology, 28(4), 325–339. https://doi. cessing effectiveness. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of
org/10.3766/jaaa.16051 America, 134(6), 4458–4469. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.4824700
Hsieh, M. H., Liu, K., Liu, S. K., Chiu, M. J., Hwu, H. G., & Katsarou, Z., Bostantjopoulou, S., Kimiskidis, V., Rossopoulos, E.,
Chen, A. C. (2004). Memory impairment and auditory & Kazis, A. (2004). Auditory event-related potentials in Parkinson’s
evoked potential gating deficit in schizophrenia. Psychiatry disease in relation to cognitive ability. Perceptual and Motor Skills,
Research: Neuroimaging, 130(2), 161–169. https://doi.org/10. 98(Suppl. 3), 1441–1448. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.98.3c.1441-1448
1016/j.pscychresns.2002.12.001 Killion, M. C., Niquette, P. A., Gudmundsen, G. I., Revit, L. J.,
Humes, L. E. (2004). Factors affecting long-term hearing aid suc- & Banerjee, S. (2004). Development of a quick speech-in-noise
cess [Paper presentation]. Seminars in Hearing. test for measuring signal-to-noise ratio loss in normal-hearing
Humes, L. E. (2021). Factors underlying individual differences in and hearing-impaired listeners. The Journal of the Acoustical
speech-recognition threshold (SRT) in noise among older Society of America, 116(4), 2395–2405.
adults. Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience, 13, Article 702739. Kim, S., Choi, I., Schwalje, A. T., Kim, K., & Lee, J. H. (2020).
https://doi.org/10.3389/fnagi.2021.702739 Auditory working memory explains variance in speech recog-
Humes, L. E. (2021b). Longitudinal changes in auditory and cognition in older listeners under adverse listening conditions.
nitive function in middle-aged and older adults. Journal of Clinical Interventions in Aging, 15, 395–406. https://doi.org/10.
Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 64(1), 230–249. 2147/CIA.S241976
https://doi.org/10.1044/2020_JSLHR-20-00274 Kjellberg, A. (2004). Effects of reverberation time on the cogni-
Humes, L. E. (2005). Do ‘auditory processing’ tests measure tive load in speech communication: Theoretical consider-
auditory processing in the elderly? Ear and Hearing, 26(2), ations. Noise and Health, 7(25), 11–21.
109–119. https://doi.org/10.1097/00003446-200504000-00001 Koelewijn, T., Zekveld, A. A., Festen, J. M., & Kramer, S. E.
Humes, L. E., Kewley-Port, D., Fogerty, D., & Kinney, D. (2010). (2014). The influence of informational masking on speech per-
Measures of hearing threshold and temporal processing across ception and pupil response in adults with hearing impairment.
the adult lifespan. Hearing Research, 264(1–2), 30–40. https:// The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 135(3),
doi.org/10.1016/j.heares.2009.09.010 1596–1606. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.4863198
Humes, L. E., Kidd, G. R., & Lentz, J. J. (2013). Auditory and Koerner, T. K., Papesh, A. M., & Gallun, F. J. (2020). A ques-
cognitive factors underlying individual differences in aided speech- tionnaire survey of current rehabilitation practices for adults
understanding among older adults. Frontiers in Systems Neuro- with normal hearing sensitivity who experience auditory diffi-
science, 7, Article 55. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnsys.2013.00055 culties. American Journal of Audiology, 29(4), 738–761.
Ingvalson, E. M., Lansford, K. L., Fedorova, V., & Fernandez, G. https://doi.org/10.1044/2020_AJA-20-00027
(2017). Cognitive factors as predictors of accented speech per- Krause, M. O., Kennedy, M. R., & Nelson, P. B. (2014). Masking
ception for younger and older adults. The Journal of the release, processing speed and listening effort in adults with
Acoustical Society of America, 141(6), 4652–4659. https://doi. traumatic brain injury. Brain Injury, 28(11), 1473–1484.
org/10.1121/1.4986930 https://doi.org/10.3109/02699052.2014.920520
Jain, C., & Dwarakanath, V. M. (2019). Influence of subcortical Krishnamurthy, S., Sivagnaname, Y., & Gumallapu, G. C. (2019).
auditory processing and cognitive measures on cocktail party Identification of subclinical cognitive impairment in chronic
listening in younger and older adults. International Journal of obstructive pulmonary disease using auditory P300 event
Audiology, 58(2), 87–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/14992027.2018. related potential. Monaldi Archives for Chest Disease, 89(2).
1543962 https://doi.org/10.4081/monaldi.2019.1039
Jain, S., Rathnamala, M., & Narne, V. K. (2022). Evaluation of Lee, S. J., Park, K. W., Kim, L.-S., & Kim, H. (2018). Association
auditory processing and working memory abilities in individ- between frontal-executive dysfunction and speech-in-noise percep-
uals with chronic renal disease undergoing hemodialysis. Audi- tion deficits in mild cognitive impairment. Journal of Clinical Neu-
tory Perception & Cognition, 5(1–2), 129–150. https://doi.org/ rology, 14(4), 513–522. https://doi.org/10.3988/jcn.2018.14.4.513
10.1080/25742442.2022.2036538 Lentz, J. J., Humes, L. E., & Kidd, G. R. (2022). Differences in
Kalikow, D. N., Stevens, K. N., & Elliott, L. L. (1977). Develop- auditory perception between young and older adults when con-
ment of a test of speech intelligibility in noise using sentence trolling for differences in hearing loss and cognition. Trends in
materials with controlled word predictability. The Journal of Hearing, 26. https://doi.org/10.1177/23312165211066180
the Acoustical Society of America, 61(5), 1337–1351. Lopez-Poveda, E. A., Johannesen, P. T., Pérez-González, P.,
Kamerer, A. M., AuBuchon, A., Fultz, S. E., Kopun, J. G., Neely, Blanco, J. L., Kalluri, S., & Edwards, B. (2017). Predictors of
S. T., & Rasetshwane, D. M. (2019). The role of cognition in hearing-aid outcomes. Trends in Hearing, 21. https://doi.org/
common measures of peripheral synaptopathy and hidden 10.1177/2331216517730526
Lunner, T. (2003). Cognitive function in relation to hearing aid of inhibition, working memory and speed of processing. Cur-
use. International Journal of Audiology, 42(Supp. 1), 49–58. rent Psychology, 40(5), 2462–2471. https://doi.org/10.1007/
https://doi.org/10.3109/14992020309074624 s12144-019-00170-8
Lunner, T., & Sundewall-Thorén, E. (2007). Interactions between Mitchell, A. S., & Chakraborty, S. (2013). What does the medio-
cognition, compression, and listening conditions: Effects on dorsal thalamus do? Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience, 7,
speech-in-noise performance in a two-channel hearing aid. Article 37.
Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 18(07), 604– Moberly, A. C., Harris, M. S., Boyce, L., & Nittrouer, S. (2017).
617. https://doi.org/10.3766/jaaa.18.7.7 Speech recognition in adults with cochlear implants: The
Mamo, S. K., & Helfer, K. S. (2021). Speech understanding in effects of working memory, phonological sensitivity, and
modulated noise and speech maskers as a function of cogni- aging. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research,
tive status in older adults. American Journal of Audiology, 60(4), 1046–1061. https://doi.org/10.1044/2016_jslhr-h-16-0119
30(3), 642–654. https://doi.org/10.1044/2021_AJA-20-00177 Moberly, A. C., Mattingly, J. K., & Castellanos, I. (2019). How
Mamo, S. K., Reed, N. S., Sharrett, A. R., Albert, M. S., Coresh, does nonverbal reasoning affect sentence recognition in adults
J., Mosley, T. H., Knopman, D., Lin, F. R., & Deal, J. A. with cochlear implants and normal-hearing peers? Audiology and
(2019). Relationship between domain-specific cognitive func- Neurotology, 24(3), 127–138. https://doi.org/10.1159/000500699
tion and speech-in-noise performance in older adults: The Moberly, A. C., Patel, T. R., & Castellanos, I. (2018). Relations
Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities Hearing Pilot Study. between self-reported executive functioning and speech perception
American Journal of Audiology, 28(4), 1006–1014. https://doi. skills in adult cochlear implant users. Otology and Neurotology,
org/10.1044/2019_AJA-19-00043 39(2), 250–257. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000001679
Marsh, J. T., Schubarth, G., Brown, W. S., Riege, W., Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & PRISMA
Strandburg, R., Dorsey, D., Maltese, A., & Kuhl, D. (1990). Group*. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic
PET and P300 relationships in early Alzheimer’s disease. Neu- reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. Annals
robiology of Aging, 11(4), 471–476. https://doi.org/10.1016/ of Internal Medicine, 151(4), 264–269.
0197-4580(90)90015-R Moore, D. R., Edmondson-Jones, M., Dawes, P., Fortnum, H.,
Mauk, M. D., & Buonomano, D. V. (2004). The neural basis of McCormack, A., Pierzycki, R. H., & Munro, K. J. (2014).
temporal processing. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 27(1), Relation between speech-in-noise threshold, hearing loss and
307–340. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.neuro.27.070203.144247 cognition from 40–69 years of age. PLOS ONE, 9(9), Article
McCreery, R. W., Walker, E. A., Spratford, M., Lewis, D., & e107720. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0107720
Brennan, M. (2019). Auditory, cognitive, and linguistic factors Mosnier, I., Bebear, J.-P., Marx, M., Fraysse, B., Truy, E., Lina-
predict speech recognition in adverse listening conditions for Granade, G., Mondain, M., Sterkers-Artières, F., Bordure, P.,
children with hearing loss. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 13, Arti- Robier, A., Godey, B., Meyer, B., Frachet, B., Poncet-Wallet,
cle 1093. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2019.01093 C., Bouccara, D., & Sterkers, O. (2015). Improvement of cog-
McLaughlin, D. J., Baese-Berk, M. M., Bent, T., Borrie, S. A., & nitive function after cochlear implantation in elderly patients.
Van Engen, K. J. (2018). Coping with adversity: Individual JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery, 141(5), 442–
differences in the perception of noisy and accented speech. 450. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoto.2015.129
Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 80(6), 1559–1570. Mukari, S. Z. M. S., Yusof, Y., Ishak, W. S., Maamor, N.,
https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-018-1537-4 Chellapan, K., & Dzulkifli, M. A. (2020). Relative contribu-
McWeeny, S., Choe, J., & Norton, E. (2021). SnowGlobe: An iter- tions of auditory and cognitive functions on speech recogni-
ative search tool for systematic reviews and meta-analyses. tion in quiet and in noise among older adults. Brazilian Jour-
OSF. https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/U25RN nal of Otorhinolaryngology, 86(2), 149–156. https://doi.org/10.
Merten, N., Fischer, M. E., Tweed, T. S., Breteler, M. M., & 1016/j.bjorl.2018.10.010
Cruickshanks, K. J. (2020). Associations of hearing sensitivity, Mullen, R. (2007). The state of the evidence: ASHA develops
higher-order auditory processing, and cognition over time in levels of evidence for communication sciences and disorders.
middle-aged adults. The Journals of Gerontology: Series A, The ASHA Leader, 12(3), 8–25. https://doi.org/10.1044/leader.
75(3), 545–551. https://doi.org/10.1093/gerona/glz189 FTR4.12032007.8
Miller, C. W., Stewart, E. K., Wu, Y.-H., Bishop, C., Bentler, Murphy, C. F., Rabelo, C. M., Silagi, M. L., Mansur, L. L., &
R. A., & Tremblay, K. (2017). Working memory and speech rec- Schochat, E. (2016). Impact of educational level on perfor-
ognition in noise under ecologically relevant listening conditions: mance on auditory processing tests. Frontiers in Neuroscience,
Effects of visual cues and noise type among adults with hearing 10, Article 97. https://doi.org/10.3389%2Ffnins.2016.00097
loss. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 60(8), Murphy, C. F., Rabelo, C. M., Silagi, M. L., Mansur, L. L.,
2310–2320. https://doi.org/10.1044/2017_JSLHR-H-16-0284 Bamiou, D. E., & Schochat, E. (2018). Auditory processing
Millett, P., Jutras, B., Noel, G., Pichora-Fuller, K., Watson, C., performance of the middle-aged and elderly: Auditory or cog-
& Nelson, A. (2012). Canadian guideline on auditory processing nitive decline? Journal of the American Academy of Audiology,
disorder in children and adults: Assessment and intervention. 29(01), 005–014. https://doi.org/10.3766/jaaa.15098
Canadian Interorganizational Steering Group for Audiology Musiek, F. E. (1983). Assessment of central auditory dysfunction:
Speech-Language Pathology. https://www.ooaq.qc.ca/media/ The dichotic digit test revisited. Ear and Hearing, 4(2), 79–83.
qf4ar4jk/canadian_guidelines_en.pdf Mussoi, B. S. (2021). The impact of music training and working
Millman, R. E., & Mattys, S. L. (2017). Auditory verbal working memory on speech recognition in older age. Journal of
memory as a predictor of speech perception in modulated Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 64(11), 4524–4534.
maskers in listeners with normal hearing. Journal of Speech, https://doi.org/10.1044/2021_jslhr-20-00426
Language, and Hearing Research, 60(5), 1236–1245. https:// Nagaraj, N. K. (2021). Effect of auditory distraction on working
doi.org/10.1044/2017_JSLHR-S-16-0105 memory, attention switching, and listening comprehension.
Mioni, G., Cardullo, S., Ciavarelli, A., & Stablum, F. (2021). Audiology Research, 11(2), 227–243. https://doi.org/10.3390/
Age-related changes in time discrimination: The involvement audiolres11020021

Nagasawa, T., Kamiya, T., Kawasaki, Y., Higashima, M., Urata, International Journal of Audiology, 60(2), 123–132. https://doi.
K., Sakai, N., & Koshino, Y. (1999). The relationship between org/10.1080/14992027.2020.1791366
auditory ERP and neuropsychological assessments in schizo- Oberauer, K. (2002). Access to information in working memory:
phrenia. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 34(3), Exploring the focus of attention. Journal of Experimental Psy-
267–274. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0167-8760(99)00083-5 chology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28(3), 411–421.
Naismith, S. L., Mowszowski, L., Ward, P. B., Diamond, K., Ohlenforst, B., Souza, P. E., & MacDonald, E. (2016). Exploring
Paradise, M., Kaur, M., Lewis, S. J., Hickie, I. B., & the relationship between working memory, compressor speed
Hermens, D. F., & Hermens, D. F. (2012). Reduced temporal and background noise characteristics. Ear and Hearing, 37(2),
mismatch negativity in late-life depression: an event-related 137–143. https://doi.org/10.1097/AUD.0000000000000240
potential index of cognitive deficit and functional disability? Oliveira, M. D. F. F. D., Menezes, P. D. L., Carnaúba, A. T. L.,
Journal of Affective Disorders, 138(1–2), 71–78. https://doi.org/ Pereira, L. D., Andrade, K. C. L. D., Frizzo, A. C. F., &
10.1016/j.jad.2011.12.028 Soares, I. D. A. (2021). Cognitive performance and long-
Neher, T. (2014). Relating hearing loss and executive functions to latency auditory evoked potentials: a study on aging. Clinics,
hearing aid users’ preference for, and speech recognition with, 76. https://doi.org/10.6061/clinics/2021/e1567
different combinations of binaural noise reduction and micro- Ouzzani, M., Hammady, H., Fedorowicz, Z., & Elmagarmid, A.
phone directionality. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 8, Article 391. (2016). Rayyan—A web and mobile app for systematic reviews.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2014.00391 Systematic Reviews, 5(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-
Neher, T., Behrens, T., Carlile, S., Jin, C., Kragelund, L., 016-0384-4
Petersen, A. S., & Schaik, A. (2009). Benefit from spatial sepa- Ozcan, H., Ozer, S., & Yagcioglu, S. (2016). Neuropsychological,
ration of multiple talkers in bilateral hearing-aid users: Effects of electrophysiological and neurological impairments in patients
hearing loss, age, and cognition. International Journal of Audiol- with obsessive compulsive disorder, their healthy siblings and
ogy, 48, 758–774. https://doi.org/10.3109/14992020903079332 healthy controls: identifying potential endophenotype(s). Psy-
Neher, T., Grimm, G., & Hohmann, V. (2014). Perceptual conse- chiatry Research, 240, 110–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
quences of different signal changes due to binaural noise psychres.2016.04.013
reduction: Do hearing loss and working memory capacity Pang, S., Borod, J. C., Hernandez, A., Bodis-Wollner, I., Raskin,
play a role? Ear and Hearing, 35, e213–227. https://doi.org/10. S., Mylin, L., Coscia, L., & Yahr, M. D. (1990). The auditory
1097/AUD.0000000000000054 P300 correlates with specific cognitive deficits in Parkinson’s
Neher, T., Grimm, G., Hohmann, V., & Kollmeier, B. (2013). Do disease. Journal of Neural Transmission-Parkinson’s Disease
hearing loss and cognitive function modulate benefit from dif- and Dementia Section, 2(4), 249–264. https://doi.org/10.1007/
ferent binaural noise-reduction settings? Ear and Hearing, 35, BF02252920
e52–62. https://doi.org/10.1097/AUD.0000000000000003 Parbery-Clark, A., Strait, D. L., Anderson, S., Hittner, E., &
Neher, T., Laugesen, S., Søgaard Jensen, N., & Kragelund, L. Kraus, N. (2011). Musical experience and the aging auditory
(2011). Can basic auditory and cognitive measures predict system: Implications for cognitive abilities and hearing speech
hearing-impaired listeners’ localization and spatial speech rec- in noise. PLOS ONE, 6(5), Article e18082. https://doi.org/10.
ognition abilities? The Journal of the Acoustical Society of 1371/journal.pone.0018082
America, 130(3), 1542–1558. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.3608122 Parsons, S., Kruijt, A.-W., & Fox, E. (2019). Psychological sci-
Neher, T., Lunner, T., Hopkins, K., & Moore, B. C. (2012). Bin- ence needs a standard practice of reporting the reliability of
aural temporal fine structure sensitivity, cognitive function, cognitive-behavioral measurements. Advances in Methods and
and spatial speech recognition of hearing-impaired listeners. Practices in Psychological Science, 2(4), 378–395. https://doi.
Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 131, 2561–2564. org/10.1177/2515245919879695
https://doi.org/10.1121/1.3689850 Patro, C., Kreft, H. A., & Wojtczak, M. (2021). The search for
Neshige, R., Barrett, G., & Shibasaki, H. (1988). Auditory long correlates of age-related cochlear synaptopathy: Measures of
latency event-related potentials in Alzheimer’s disease and temporal envelope processing and spatial release from speech-
multi-infarct dementia. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & on-speech masking. Hearing Research, 409, Article 108333.
Psychiatry, 51(9), 1120–1125. https://doi.org/10.1136/jnnp.51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heares.2021.108333
9.1120 Pichora-Fuller, M. K., Kramer, S. E., Eckert, M. A., Edwards, B.,
Ng, E. H., Classon, E., Larsby, B., Arlinger, S., Lunner, T., Hornsby, B. W., Humes, L. E., Lemke, U., Lunner, T., Matthen,
Rudner, M., & Rönnberg, J. (2014). Dynamic relation between M., Mackersie, C. L., Naylor, G., Phillips, N. A., Richter, M.,
working memory capacity and speech recognition in noise Rudner, M., Sommers, M. S., Tremblay, K. L., & Wingfield, A.
during the first 6 months of hearing aid use. Trends in Hear- (2016). Hearing impairment and cognitive energy: The framework
ing, 18. https://doi.org/10.1177/2331216514558688 for understanding effortful listening (FUEL). Ear and Hearing,
Nixon, G., Sarant, J. Z., Tomlin, D., & Dowell, R. (2019). The 37(1), 5S–27S. https://doi.org/10.1097/AUD.0000000000000312
relationship between peripheral hearing loss and higher order Pichora-Fuller, M. K., Schneider, B. A., Macdonald, E., Pass, H. E.,
listening function on cognition in older Australians. Interna- & Brown, S. (2007). Temporal jitter disrupts speech intelligibil-
tional Journal of Audiology, 58(12), 933–944. https://doi.org/ ity: A simulation of auditory aging. Hearing Research,
10.1080/14992027.2019.1641752 223(1–2), 114–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heares.2006.10.009
Nuesse, T., Steenken, R., Neher, T., & Holube, I. (2018). Explor- Pinheiro, M. M. C., Iório, M. C. M., Miranda, E. C., Dias, K. Z.,
ing the link between cognitive abilities and speech recognition & Pereira, L. D. (2012). The influence of cognitive aspects
in the elderly under different listening conditions. Frontiers in and auditory processes on the hearing aid acclimatization in
Psychology, 9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00678 the elderly. Jornal Da Sociedade Brasileira De Fonoaudiologia,
O’Brien, J. L., Lister, J. J., Fausto, B. A., Morgan, D. G., 24, 309–315. https://doi.org/10.1590/s2179-64912012000400004
Maeda, H., Andel, R., & Edwards, J. D. (2021). Are auditory Podemski, R., Pokryszko-Dragan, A., Zagrajek, M., Słotwiński,
processing and cognitive performance assessments overlapping K., Bilińska, M., Sąsiadek, M., Filarski, J., & Mazur, K.
or distinct? Parsing the auditory behaviour of older adults. (2008). Mild cognitive impairment and event-related potentials in
patients with cerebral atrophy and leukoaraiosis. Neurological Sci- Rönnberg, J., Lunner, T., Zekveld, A., Sörqvist, P., Danielsson,
ences, 29(6), 411–416. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10072-008-1057-4 H., Lyxell, B., Dahlström, O., Signoret, C., Stenfelt, S.,
Pokryszko-Dragan, A., Słotwiński, K., & Podemski, R. (2003). Pichora-Fuller, M. K., & Rudner, M. (2013). The ease of lan-
Modality-specific changes in P300 parameters in patients with guage understanding (ELU) model: Theoretical, empirical,
dementia of the Alzheimer type. Medical Science Monitor: and clinical advances. Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience, 7,
International Medical Journal of Experimental and Clinical Article 31. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnsys.2013.00031
Research, 9(4), CR130–CR134. Rönnberg, J., Rudner, M., Lunner, T., & Zekveld, A. A. (2010).
Pokryszko-Dragan, A., Zagrajek, M., Slotwinski, K., Gruszka, E., When cognition kicks in: Working memory and speech under-
Bilinska, M., & Podemski, R. (2009). Neuropsychological test- standing in noise. Noise and Health, 12(49), 263–269. https://
ing and event-related potentials in the assessment of cognitive doi.org/10.4103/1463-1741.70505
performance in the patients with multiple sclerosis—a pilot Rosemann, S., & Thiel, C. M. (2020). Neural signatures of work-
study. Clinical Neurology and Neurosurgery, 111(6), 503–506. ing memory in age-related hearing loss. Neuroscience, 429,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clineuro.2009.01.009 134–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroscience.2019.12.046
Portin, R., Kovala, T., Polo‐Kantola, P., Revonsuo, A., Müller, K., Rudner, M., Foo, C., Ronnberg, J., & Lunner, T. (2007). Phonol-
& Matikainen, E. (2000). Does P3 reflect attentional or mem- ogical mismatch makes aided speech recognition in noise cog-
ory performances, or cognition more generally? Scandinavian nitively taxing. Ear and Hearing, 28(6), 879. https://doi.org/10.
Journal of Psychology, 41(1), 31–40. https://doi.org/10.1111/ 1097/AUD.0b013e3181576c9c
1467-9450.00168 Rudner, M., Foo, C., Rönnberg, J., & Lunner, T. (2009). Cognition
Preminger, J. E., & Laplante-Lévesque, A. (2014). Perceptions of and aided speech recognition in noise: Specific role for cognitive
age and brain in relation to hearing help-seeking and rehabili- factors following nine‐week experience with adjusted compression
tation. Ear and Hearing, 35(1), 19–29. https://doi.org/10.1097/ settings in hearing aids. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology,
AUD.0b013e31829c065c 50(5), 405–418. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9450.2009.00745.x
Pronk, M., Deeg, D. J., Festen, J. M., Twisk, J. W., Smits, C., Rudner, M., Rönnberg, J., & Lunner, T. (2011). Working memory
Comijs, H. C., & Kramer, S. E. (2013). Decline in older per- supports listening in noise for persons with hearing impair-
sons’ ability to recognize speech in noise: The influence of ment. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 22,
demographic, health-related, environmental, and cognitive 156–167. https://doi.org/10.3766/jaaa.22.3.4
factors. Ear and Hearing, 34(6), 722–732. https://doi.org/10. Sánchez-Morla, E. M., Santos, J. L., Aparicio, A., García-
1097/AUD.0b013e3182994eee Jiménez, M. Á., Soria, C., & Arango, C. (2013). Neuropsycho-
Pronk, M., Lissenberg-Witte, B. I., van der Aa, H. P., Comijs, logical correlates of P50 sensory gating in patients with schizo-
H. C., Smits, C., Lemke, U., Zekveld, A. A., & Kramer, S. E. phrenia. Schizophrenia Research, 143(1), 102–106. https://doi.
(2019). Longitudinal relationships between decline in speech- org/10.1016/j.schres.2012.10.017
in-noise recognition ability and cognitive functioning: The Salthouse, T. A. (2000). Aging and measures of processing speed.
longitudinal aging study Amsterdam. Journal of Speech, Lan- Biological Psychology, 54(1–3), 35–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/
guage, and Hearing Research, 62(4S), 1167–1187. https://doi. S0301-0511(00)00052-1
org/10.1044/2018_JSLHR-H-ASCC7-18-0120 Salthouse, T. A., Hambrick, D. Z., & McGuthry, K. E. (1998).
Quaranta, N., Coppola, F., Casulli, M., Barulli, O., Lanza, F., Shared age-related influences on cognitive and noncognitive
Tortelli, R., Capozzo, R., Leo, A., Tursi, M., Grasso, A., variables. Psychology and Aging, 13(3), 486–500. https://doi.
Solfrizzi, V., Sobbà, C., & Logroscino, G. (2014). The preva- org/10.1037/0882-7974.13.3.486
lence of peripheral and central hearing impairment and its Sanchez-Lopez, R., Fereczkowski, M., Santurette, S., Dau, T., &
relation to cognition in older adults. Audiology and Neurotol- Neher, T. (2021). Towards auditory profile-based hearing-aid
ogy, 19(Suppl. 1), 10–14. https://doi.org/10.1159/000371597 fitting: Fitting rationale and pilot evaluation. Audiology
Rallapalli, V., Ellis, G., & Souza, P. (2021). Effects of directiona- Research, 11(1), 10–21. https://doi.org/10.3390/audiolres11010002
lity, compression, and working memory on speech recognition. Sardone, R., Battista, P., Donghia, R., Lozupone, M., Tortelli, R.,
Ear and Hearing, 42(3), 492–505. https://doi.org/10.1097/AUD. Guerra, V., Grasso, A., Griseta, C., Castellana, F., Zupo, R.,
0000000000000970 Lampignano, L., Sborgia, G., Capozzo, R., Bortone, I.,
Raymond, M. J., Lee, A. C., Schader, L. M., Moore, R. H., Stallone, R., Fiorella, M. L., Passantino, A., Giannelli, G.,
Raol, N. R., & Vivas, E. X. (2020). Practices and perceptions Seripa, D., Panza, F., . . . Quaranta, N. (2020). Age-related
of cognitive assessment for adults with age-related hearing central auditory processing disorder, MCI, and dementia in
loss. Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology, 5(1), 137– an older population of Southern Italy. Otolaryngology–Head
144. https://doi.org/10.1002/lio2.339 and Neck Surgery, 163(2), 348–355. https://doi.org/10.1177/
Reinhart, P. N., & Souza, P. E. (2016). Intelligibility and clarity 0194599820913635
of reverberant speech: Effects of wide dynamic range com- Sardone, R., Castellana, F., Bortone, I., Lampignano, L., Zupo,
pression release time and working memory. Journal of Speech, R., Lozupone, M., Griseta, C., Dibello, V., Seripa, D., Guerra,
Language, and Hearing Research, 59(6), 1543–1554. https:// V., Donghia, R., Logroscino, G., Solfrizzi, V., Quaranta, N.,
doi.org/10.1044/2016_JSLHR-H-15-0371 Ferrucci, L., Giannelli, G., & Panza, F. (2021). Association
Rönnberg, J., Lunner, T., Ng, E. H. N., Lidestam, B., Zekveld, between central and peripheral age-related hearing loss and
A. A., Sörqvist, P., Lyxell, B., Träff, U., Yumba, W., Classon, different frailty phenotypes in an older population in Southern
E., Hällgren, M., Larsby, B., Signoret, C., Pichora-Fuller, Italy. JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery, 147(6),
M. K., Rudner, M., Danielsson, H., & Stenfelt, S. (2016). 561–571. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoto.2020.5334
Hearing impairment, cognition and speech understanding: Saunders, G. H., Odgear, I., Cosgrove, A., & Frederick, M. T.
Exploratory factor analyses of a comprehensive test battery (2018). Impact of hearing loss and amplification on perfor-
for a group of hearing aid users, the n200 study. International mance on a cognitive screening test. Journal of the American
Journal of Audiology, 55(11), 623–642. https://doi.org/10.1080/ Academy of Audiology, 29(07), 648–655. https://doi.org/10.
14992027.2016.1219775 3766/jaaa.17044

Schoof, T., & Rosen, S. (2014). The role of auditory and cogni- Thomas, C., vom Berg, I., Rupp, A., Seidl, U., Schröder, J.,
tive factors in understanding speech in noise by normal- Roesch-Ely, D., Kreisel, S. H., Mundt, C., & Weisbrod, M.
hearing older listeners. Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience, 6, (2010). P50 gating deficit in Alzheimer dementia correlates to
307. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnagi.2014.00307 frontal neuropsychological function. Neurobiology of Aging, 31(3),
Shader, M. J., Yancey, C. M., Gordon-Salant, S., & Goupell, 416–424. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2008.05.002
M. J. (2020). Spectral-temporal trade-off in vocoded sentence Tremblay, K., & Kraus, N. (2002). Beyond the ear: Central audi-
recognition: Effects of age, hearing thresholds, and working tory plasticity. Otorinolaringologia, 52, 93–100.
memory. Ear and Hearing, 41(5), 1226. https://doi.org/10. Uchida, Y., Sugiura, S., Nishita, Y., Saji, N., Sone, M., & Ueda,
1097/AUD.0000000000000840 H. (2019). Age-related hearing loss and cognitive decline—
Sheft, S., Shafiro, V., Wang, E., Barnes, L. L., & Shah, R. C. The potential mechanisms linking the two. Auris Nasus Lar-
(2015). Relationship between auditory and cognitive abilities ynx, 46(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anl.2018.08.010
in older adults. PLOS ONE, 10(8), Article e0134330. https:// Ulbrich, P., Churan, J., Fink, M., & Wittmann, M. (2009). Per-
doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0134330 ception of temporal order: The effects of age, sex, and cogni-
Slater, J., & Kraus, N. (2016). The role of rhythm in perceiving tive factors. Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition, 16(2),
speech in noise: A comparison of percussionists, vocalists and 183–202. https://doi.org/10.1080/13825580802411758
non-musicians. Cognitive Processing, 17, 79–87. https://doi. Unsworth, N., & Spillers, G. J. (2010). Working memory capac-
org/10.1007/s10339-015-0740-7 ity: Attention control, secondary memory, or both? A direct
Smith, S. L., & Pichora-Fuller, M. K. (2015). Associations test of the dual-component model. Journal of Memory and
between speech understanding and auditory and visual tests of Language, 62(4), 392–406. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2010.
verbal working memory: Effects of linguistic complexity, task, 02.001
age, and hearing loss. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, Article 1394. van Rooij, J. C., & Plomp, R. (1992). Auditive and cognitive fac-
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01394 tors in speech perception by elderly listeners. III. Additional
Souza, P., & Arehart, K. (2015). Robust relationship between data and final discussion. The Journal of the Acoustical Soci-
reading span and speech recognition in noise. International ety of America, 91(2), 1028–1033. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.
Journal of Audiology, 54(10), 705–713. https://doi.org/10.3109/ 402628
14992027.2015.1043062 Vaughan, N., Storzbach, D., & Furukawa, I. (2008). Investigation
Stenbäck, V., Hällgren, M., & Larsby, B. (2016). Executive func- of potential cognitive tests for use with older adults in audiol-
tions and working memory capacity in speech communication ogy clinics. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology,
under adverse conditions. Speech, Language and Hearing, 19(07), 533–541. https://doi.org/10.3766/jaaa.19.7.2
19(4), 218–226. https://doi.org/10.1080/2050571X.2016.1196034 Volpato, C., Piccione, F., Silvoni, S., Cavinato, M., Palmieri, A.,
Strelcyk, O., Zahorik, P., Shehorn, J., Patro, C., & Derleth, Meneghello, F., & Birbaumer, N. (2010). Working memory in
R. P. (2019). Sensitivity to interaural phase in older hearing- amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: Auditory event-related potentials and
impaired listeners correlates with nonauditory trail making neuropsychological evidence. Journal of Clinical Neurophysiology,
scores and with a spatial auditory task of unrelated periph- 27(3), 198–206. https://doi.org/10.1097/WNP.0b013e3181e0aa14
eral origin. Trends in Hearing, 23. https://doi.org/10.1177/ Wagner, R. K., & Torgesen, J. K. (1987). The nature of phonolo-
2331216519864499 gical processing and its causal role in the acquisition of read-
Strori, D., & Souza, P. E. (2022). The role of working memory ing skills. Psychological Bulletin, 101(2), 192–212. https://doi.
in speech recognition by hearing-impaired older listeners: Does org/10.1037/0033-2909.101.2.192
the task matter? International Journal of Audiology, 62(11), Wayne, R. V., Hamilton, C., Jones Huyck, J., & Johnsrude, I. S.
1067–1075. https://doi.org/10.1080/14992027.2022.2128445 (2016). Working memory training and speech in noise com-
Stuckenschneider, T., Askew, C. D., Weber, J., Abeln, V., prehension in older adults. Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience,
Rüdiger, S., Summers, M. J., Schneider, S., & NeuroExercise 8, Article 49. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnagi.2016.00049
Study Group. (2020). Auditory event-related potentials in indi- Weihing, J., Chermak, G. D., & Musiek, F. E. (2015). Auditory
viduals with subjective and mild cognitive impairment. Behav- training for central auditory processing disorder [Paper presen-
ioural Brain Research, 391, Article 112700. https://doi.org/10. tation]. Seminars in Hearing.
1016/j.bbr.2020.112700 Wingfield, A., Stine, E. A., Lahar, C. J., & Aberdeen, J. S.
Sweetow, R. W., & Sabes, J. H. (2006). The need for and devel- (1988). Does the capacity of working memory change with
opment of an adaptive listening and communication age? Experimental Aging Research, 14(2), 103–107. https://doi.
enhancement (LACE™) program. Journal of the American org/10.1080/03610738808259731
Academy of Audiology, 17(8), 538–558. https://doi.org/10. Wong, L. L. N., Yu, J. K. Y., Chan, S. S., & Tong, M. C. F.
3766/jaaa.17.8.2 (2014). Screening of cognitive function and hearing impair-
Szymaszek, A., Sereda, M., Pöppel, E., & Szelag, E. (2009). Indi- ment in older adults: A preliminary study. BioMed Research
vidual differences in the perception of temporal order: the International, 2014, Article 867852. https://doi.org/10.1155/
effect of age and cognition. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 26(2), 2014/867852
135–147. https://doi.org/10.1080/02643290802504742 Wong, P. C., Jin, J. X., Gunasekera, G. M., Abel, R., Lee, E. R.,
Tamati, T. N., Gilbert, J. L., & Pisoni, D. B. (2013). Some fac- & Dhar, S. (2009). Aging and cortical mechanisms of speech
tors underlying individual differences in speech recognition on perception in noise. Neuropsychologia, 47(3), 693–703. https://
PRESTO: A first report. Journal of the American Academy of doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2008.11.032
Audiology, 24(7), 616–634. https://doi.org/10.3766/jaaa.24.7.10 Xia, L., Wang, D., Wang, J., Xu, H., Huo, L., Tian, Y., Dai, Q.,
Tanaka, H., Koenig, T., Pascual-Marqui, R. D., Hirata, K., Wei, S., Wang, W., Zhang, G., Du, X., Jia, Q., Zhu, X.,
Kochi, K., & Lehmann, D. (2000). Event-related potential and Wang, L., Tang, W., & Zhang, X. Y. (2020). Association of
EEG measures in Parkinson’s disease without and with cognitive and P50 suppression deficits in chronic patients with
dementia. Dementia and Geriatric Cognitive Disorders, 11(1), schizophrenia. Clinical Neurophysiology, 131(3), 725–733.
39–45. https://doi.org/10.1159/000017212 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinph.2019.12.405
Yadon, C. A., Bugg, J. M., Kisley, M. A., & Davalos, D. B. hearing aid users. Noise & Health, 21(98), 7. https://doi.org/
(2009). P50 sensory gating is related to performance on select 10.4103/nah.NAH_59_18
tasks of cognitive inhibition. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Zeng, Q., Dong, X., Ruan, C., Hu, B., Zhou, B., Xue, Y., Liu Y, &
Neuroscience, 9(4), 448–458. https://doi.org/10.3758/CABN.9.4.448 Yang, H. (2017). Cognitive impairment in Chinese IIDDs
Yeend, I., Beach, E. F., & Sharma, M. (2019). Working memory revealed by MoCA and P300. Multiple Sclerosis and Related
and extended high-frequency hearing in adults: Diagnostic pre- Disorders, 16, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msard.2017.05.006
dictors of speech-in-noise perception. Ear and Hearing, 40(3), Zhan, Y., Fellows, A. M., Qi, T., Clavier, O. H., Soli, S. D., Shi,
458–467. https://doi.org/10.1097/AUD.0000000000000640 X., Gui, J., Shi, Y., & Buckey, J. C. (2018). Speech in noise
Yumba, W. K. (2019). Selected cognitive factors associated with perception as a marker of cognitive impairment in HIV infec-
individual variability in clinical measures of speech recognition. Ear and Hearing, 39(3), 548–554. https://doi.org/10.1097/
tion in noise amplified by fast-acting compression among AUD.0000000000000508

Appendix (p. 1 of 21)
Table A1. Correlations between behavioral auditory measures and cognitive constructs.
Behavioral auditory Auditory Cognitive Effect size

construct Study N measure construct Correlation p value (r unless specified)
Speech in noise Anderson et al., 2013 120 QSIN WM ~ > .05 −.42
WIN ^^ ~ > .05 −.16
Anderson et al., 2013 120 HINT WM + < .01 .27
^^ ^^ + < .05 −.22
QSIN ^^ + < .01 −.29
WIN ^^ + < .01 −.27
Anzivino et al., 2019 44 SentBab Multi + .04 NR
^^ ^^ + .02 NR
Arehart et al., 2015 31 Sent4 WM + .04 t = 2.15
Cahana-Amitay et al., 2016 173 SPIN ExP ~ > .05 NR
^^ WM ~ > .05 NR
^^ ^^ ~ > .05 NR
Cahana-Amitay et al., 2016 173 SPIN ExP + .002 t = −3.1
Carvalho et al., 2017 25 SentSS Multi + .003 −.57
^^ ^^ + .002 .58
Davidson & Souza: Relationship Between Aud and Cog Abilities
Castiglione et al., 2019 166 SentSS Multi + < .001 −.54

Cox et al., 2008 45 QSIN WM ~ > .05 .39
^^ ^^ ~ > .05 .44
Ellis et al., 2016 1,509 SentSS ProcS + < .001 .37
^^ ExP + < .001 .33
Foo et al., 2007 32 SentUnMod WM + < .01 −.67
SentMod ^^ + < .01 −.65
HINT ^^ + < .01 −.53
Fostick et al., 2013 89 WordsSS WM ~ > .05 .1
WordsW ^^ ~ > .05 .16
Füllgrabe et al., 2015 30 VCV WM ~ > .05 .28
^^ ^^ ~ > .05 .13
Sent2 ^^ ~ > .05 .45
^^ ^^ ~ > .05 .27
Füllgrabeet al., 2015 30 VCV WM + ≤ .05 .52
^^ ExP + ≤ .05 .40
Sent2 ^^ + ≤ .05 .61
^^ WM + ≤ .05 .65
(table continues)
325

326
Table A1. (Continued).

Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research • Vol. 67 • 296–345 • January 2024

Ghannoum et al., 2018 71 SPIN ExP ~ .07 .15
SSI-ICM ^^ ~ .09 .15
SSI-CCM ^^ ~ .48 .17
SPIN ^^ ~ .34 .08
SSI-ICM ^^ ~ 2.49 .03
SSI-CCM ^^ ~ 2.65 .17
SPIN WM ~ .69 .11
SSI-ICM ^^ ~ 1.3 .07
SSI-CCM ^^ ~ 1.69 .02
SPIN VisP ~ 1.84 .04
SSI-ICM ^^ ~ 1.0 .09
SSI-CCM ^^ ~ .88 .04
Giroud et al., 2021 38 SentSS WM ~ .65 .32
Gordon-Salant & Cole, 2016 28 WordsBab WM + < .01 −.63
^^ ^^ + < .01 −.48
^^ ProcS + < .01 −.59
^^ ^^ + < .01 −.52
SentBab WM + < .01 −.63
^^ ^^ + < .01 −.55
^^ ProcS + < .05 −.36
^^ ^^ + < .05 −.33
Helfer & Freyman, 2014 45 Sent2 ExP ~ > .05 −.17
Sent1 ^^ ~ > .05 −.25
Helfer & Freyman, 2014 45 Sent2 WM + ≤ .05 .42
^^ ExP + ≤ .05 .42
Sent1 ^^ + ≤ .05 .45
Humes, 2021 137 QSIN WM + < .01 −.16
WIN ^^ + < .01 −.27
Humes et al., 2013 125 CompSIN WM + < .01 .54
Jain & Dwarakanath, 2019 92 QSIN WM ~ .75 .04
Jain & Dwarakanath, 2019 92 QSIN WM + .01 .48
Kamerer et al., 2019 32 WordsSS WM ~ > .05 NR
Kim et al., 2020 96 SentBab WM + .001 .38
^^ ^^ + .001 .38
Koelewijn et al., 2014 32 SentFluc WM ~ > .05 −.13
Sent1 ^^ ~ > .05 −.19
(table continues)


Krause et al., 2014 15 Sent16Hz ProcS ~ > .05 −.02
Sent4kHz ^^ ~ > .05 .24
Krause et al., 2014 15 Sent2 ProcS + < .05 .60
Lee et al., 2018 46 Sent3 WM + < .05 .35
Lunner, 2003 72 SentSS WM + < .05 −.53
^^ ProcS + < .05 .39
Lunner & Sundewall-Thoren, 2007 23 SentUnMod WM + < .05 −.44
Mamo & Helfer, 2021 39 SentMod WM ~ .46 .10
Mamo & Helfer, 2021 39 Sent2 WM + .05 .30
Mamo et al., 2019 250 QSIN WM + .01 .82
^^ ExP + .02 .81
Merten et al., 2020 1,274 Words1 ExP + < .05 .14
Miller et al., 2017 76 SentSS WM ~ .15 F = 2.2
^^ ^^ ~ .15 F = 2.1
Millman & Mattys, 2017 30 SentMod WM ~ .40 .16
^^ ^^ ~ .82 .05
Millman & Mattys, 2017 30 SentSS WM + .05 .40

Moberly et al., 2017 60 SentSS VisP ~ > .05 NR
Moberly et al., 2017 60 SentSS WM + .007 .50
Moore et al., 2014 502,642 DigitStat Multi + < .001 NR
Mosnier et al., 2015 94 WordsW Multi ~ > .05 NR
^^ VisP ~ > .05 NR
^^ ProcS ~ > .05 NR
^^ ExP ~ > .05 NR
Mosnier et al., 2015 94 WordsW ExP + < .05 NR
Mukari et al., 2020 72 HINT Multi + < .001 −.44
Murphy et al., 2016 177 SentW WM ~ .70 −.03
Murphy et al., 2018 77 SentW WM ~ > .05 .03
Mussoi, 2021 31 QSIN WM ~ .04 .38
HINT ^^ ~ .86 .03
SPIN ^^ ~ .16 .27
Neher, 2014 60 SentCafe WM + < .01 .35
Neher et al., 2009 20 Sent3 WM + < .01 −.58
Neher et al., 2012 17 Sent2 WM + < .05 −.48
Neher et al., 2013 40 SentCafe WM + < .05 NR
Neher et al., 2014 40 SentCafe ProcS + < .001 −.28
327
(table continues)

328


Ng et al., 2014 27 SentSS WM ~ > .05 −.31
^^ ProcS ~ > .05 .26
^^ ^^ ~ > .05 .32
^^ ^^ ~ > .05 −.23
A-SentSS ^^ ~ > .05 −.42
Ng et al., 2014 27 A-SentSS WM + < .01 −.53
^^ ProcS + .47 ≤ .05
^^ ^^ + ≤ .05 .39
O’Brien et al., 2021 213 WIN ProcS ~ > .05 .05
^^ ExP ~ > .05 .11
^^ WM ~ > .05 .12
^^ ^^ ~ > .05 .13
O’Brien et al., 2021 213 WIN Multi + < .01 −.31
Parbery-Clark et al., 2011 37 WIN WM ~ .32 −.17
Parbery-Clark et al., 2011 37 QSIN WM + .01 −.40
HINT ^^ + .03 −.35
Patro et al., 2021 61 SentBab ProcS ~ > .05 NR
^^ ExP ~ > .05 NR
Pronk et al., 2013 1,298 DigitStat Multi + < .001 −.10
Pronk et al., 2019 1,029 DigitStat Multi + NR NR
Quaranta et al., 2014 488 SSI-ICM Multi + .03 OR = 2.4
Rönnberg et al., 2016 200 Sent4 Multi + < .001 .20
Rosemann & Thiel, 2020 38 SentSS WM ~ > .05 NR
^^ ExP ~ > .05 NR
Rosemann & Thiel, 2020 38 SentSS ExP + .02 .58
Rudner et al., 2007 32 A-SentMod WM ~ > .05 NR
HINT ^^ ~ > .05 NR
Rudner et al., 2007 32 SentMod WM + < .05 −.65
HINT ^^ + < .05 −.53
Rudner et al., 2009 31 A-SentSteady WM ~ > .05 −.01
A-SentMod ^^ ~ > .05 −.43
Rudner et al., 2009 31 A-SentSteady WM + < .05 −.58
A-SentMod ^^ + < .05 −.64
HINT ^^ + < .05 −.58
(table continues)


Rudner et al., 2011 30 SentSteady WM + .01 −.46
SentMod ^^ + .01 −.48
A-SentSteady ^^ + < .05 −.37
A-SentMod ^^ + < .01 −.53
HINT ^^ + < .01 −.60
Sardone et al., 2020 1,647 SSI-ICM Multi + < .01 .04
Sardone et al., 2021 1,929 SSI-ICM Multi + NR OR = 1.9
Saunders et al., 2018 61 QSIN Multi + < .001 −.55
Schoof & Rosen, 2014 38 SentBab WM ~ > .05 NR
^^ ProcS ~ > .05 NR
Schoof & Rosen, 2014 38 SentSS ProcS + .01 .44
Sheft et al., 2015 124 QSIN Multi ~ .70 −.04
Slater & Kraus, 2016 54 QSIN WM ~ .15 −.21
Smith & Pichora-Fuller, 2015 72 SPIN VisP ~ > .003 NR
Smith & Pichora-Fuller, 2015 72 WIN VisP + < .003 −.77
QSIN ^^ + < .003 −.71
Souza & Arehart, 2015 124 QSIN WM + .02 −.18

Stroi & Souza, 2022 19 QSIN WM ~ > .05 NR
Strori & Souza, 2022 19 QSIN WM + .02 .54
van Rooij & Plomp, 1992 80 SentSS WM ~ .33 .31
Wayne et al., 2016 26 Sent2 WM ~ > .05 −.34
^^ ^^ ~ > .05 −.23
^^ ^^ ~ > .05 .26
^^ ^^ ~ > .05 .31
^^ ^^ ~ > .05 −.17
^^ ExP ~ > .05 −.06
Wayne et al., 2016 26 Sent2 WM + < .05 .45
^^ ^^ + < .05 −.42
^^ ^^ + < .01 .58
Wong et al., 2014 34 HINT Multi + < .005 .33
Yeend et al., 2019 122 CompSIN WM + < .001 .02
Yumba, 2019 195 CompSIN ExP ~ .33 t = −0.97
^^ Fluid ~ > .05 NR
Yumba, 2019 195 CompSIN WM + .02 t = −2.4
(table continues)
329

330

^^ ^^ + .03 t = −2.2
^^ ProcS + .05 t = −2.5
^^ ^^ + .02 t = −2.5
^^ ExP + .05 t = −2.0
Zhan et al., 2018 166 HINT Multi + .02 .17
Altered speech Bergemalm & Lyxell, 2005 22 TCSpch WM + NR NR
^^ ^^ + NR NR
^^ ProcS + NR NR
^^ ^^ + NR NR
^^ ^^ + NR NR
^^ Fluid + NR NR
Cervera et al., 2009 55 TCSpch WM + < .05 .37
^^ ^^ + < .05 .36
Cox, 2008 45 LPFS WM ~ > .05 .46
^^ ^^ ~ > .05 .55
Fostick et al., 2013 89 TCSpch WM ~ > .05 −.02
Kamerer et al., 2019 32 TCSpch WM + < .01 .40
^^ ExP + < .01 .63
Kim et al., 2020 96 TCSpch WM + .002 .36
Moberly et al., 2019 83 VocodSpch ExP + .02 −.35
^^ Fluid + .03 .34
O’Brien et al., 2021 213 TCSpch ProcS ~ > .05 −.03
^^ ExP ~ > .05 −.12
^^ WM ~ > .05 −.08
^^ ^^ ~ > .05 .13
O’Brien et al., 2021 213 TCSpch Multi + < .01 .36
Shader et al., 2020 30 VocodSpch WM ~ > .05 NR
Vaughan et al., 2008 225 TCSpch WM ~ > .05 NR
^^ ^^ ~ > .05 .14
^^ ProcS ~ > .05 NR
Vaughan et al., 2008 225 TCSpch WM + < .05 .28
^^ ProcS + < .05 .12
(table continues)


Temporal processing Cox, 2008 45 PPS WM ~ > .05 .25
^^ ^^ ~ > .05 .36
Danielsson et al., 2019 245 TempOr WM ~ > .05 −.10
^^ ^^ ~ > .05 −.13
Danielsson et al., 2019 245 Gap ProcS + < .05 −.16
^^ ^^ + < .01 −.23
^^ Fluid + < .01 −.19
^^ WM + < .01 −.29
^^ ^^ + < .01 −.24
^^ ^^ + < .01 −.19
^^ ^^ + < .05 −.16
TempOr ProcS + < .01 −.44
^^ ^^ + < .01 −.42
^^ Fluid + < .01 −.27
^^ WM + < .01 −.4
^^ ^^ + < .01 −.49
^^ ^^ + < .01 −.31

^^ ^^ + < .05 −.18
Füllgrabe et al., 2015 30 Envelope WM ~ > .05 −.15
^^ ^^ ~ > .05 −.15
^^ ^^ ~ > .05 .09
^^ ExP ~ > .05 −.26
^^ ^^ ~ > .05 −.11
Füllgrabe et al., 2015 30 TempFS WM + ≤ .05 .49
^^ ExP + ≤ .05 .54
Humes, 2005 213 Duration Multi + < .01 .32
TempOr ^^ + < .01 .26
Humes, 2021b 98 Gap VisP + < .05 .22
TempOr Fluid + < .01 −.32
Humes et al., 2010 339 TempMas Multi ~ > .05 NR
Humes et al., 2010 339 Gap Multi + < .01 .87
TempOr ^^ + < .01 .54
Humes et al., 2013 125 ModD Multi ~ > .01 −.25
CompTP ^^ ~ > .01 −.25
Kamerer et al., 2019 32 ModD WM + < .01 .17
^^ ^^ + < .01 .24
331
Lentz et al., 2022 155 StrSeg WM ~ .35 −.08

(table continues)

332


Lentz et al., 2022 155 ModD WM + < .001 .09
^^ ^^ + < .001 −.34
TempMas ^^ + .002 −.25
Mioni et al., 2021 247 TimeDis WM + < .01 .009
^^ ExP + < .05 .01
^^ ProcS + < .05 .02
Mukari et al., 2020 72 GIN Multi ~ > .05 −.21
Murphy et al., 2016 177 FPT WM + .004 .21
Murphy et al., 2018 77 FPT WM + < .001 .43
Neher et al., 2012 17 TempFS WM + .06 .48
O’Brien et al., 2021 213 ATTR WM ~ > .05 −.06
^^ ^^ ~ > .05 −.17
^^ Multi ~ > .05 −.07
^^ ExP ~ > .05 .12
^^ ProcS ~ > .05 .009
O’Brien et al., 2021 213 ATTR ExP + < .01 .40
^^ Multi + < .05 −.21
^^ WM + < .05 −.22
^^ ^^ + < .05 −.27
Patro et al., 2021 61 Envelope ProcS + < .05 NR
^^ ExP + < .05 NR
Rönnberg et al., 2016 200 TempFS Multi + < .001 .30
Strelcyk et al., 2019 20 ILD JND ExP ~ > .05 .60
^^ ^^ ~ > .05 .34
^^ Multi ~ > .05 −.48
IPD JND ^^ ~ > .05 −.38
^^ ProcS ~ > .05 .61
IPD Freq Multi ~ > .05 .42
Strelcyk et al., 2019 20 IPD Freq ProcS + < .05 −.69
^^ ExP + < .001 −.83
^^ ExP + < .05 −.68
IPD JND ^^ + < .05 .67
^^ ExP + < .01 .79
ILD JND ProcS + < .05 .72
Szymaszek et al., 2009 86 TempOr Fluid ~ > .05 NR
Szymaszek et al., 2009 86 TempOr Fluid + < .07 .20
Ulbrich et al., 2009 100 TempOr WM + ≤ .001 −.33
(table continues)


Binaural processing Ghannoum et al., 2018 71 DDT ExP ~ 1.29 .02
^^ ^^ ~ 1.23 .02
^^ WM ~ .11 .07
^^ VisP ~ 1.21 .05
Hällgren et al., 2001 30 DDT-LF WM ~ > .05 NR
^^ ProcS ~ > .05 NR
^^ ^^ ~ > .05 NR
^^ ^^ ~ > .05 NR
^^ ^^ ~ > .05 NR
Hällgren et al., 2001 30 DiSpch-FR WM + < .05 .57
^^ ProcS + < .05 −.38
^^ ^^ + < .05 −.46
^^ ^^ + < .05 .46
^^ ^^ + < .05 −.44
Hommet et al., 2010 53 DiSpch-FR ProcS + < .05 −.52
^^ ExP + < .05 −.54
^^ WM + < .05 .48

DiSpch-RF ExP + < .05 .66
Humes, 2005 213 DiCV Multi + < .05 .48
Humes et al., 2013 125 MLD WM ~ > .01 NR
Lentz et al., 2022 155 MLD WM + .005 −.37
Mukari et al., 2020 72 DDT Multi ~ > .05 .07
Murphy et al., 2016 177 DDT-RF WM ~ .07 .15
Murphy et al., 2016 177 DDT-LF WM + .04 .14
Murphy et al., 2018 77 DDT-LF WM ~ .09 .20
Murphy et al., 2018 77 DDT-RF WM + < .01 .30
Nixon et al., 2019 85 DDT ExP ~ > .05 NR
^^ Fluid ~ > .05 NR
^^ VisP ~ > .05 NR
^^ WM ~ > .05 NR
O’Brien et al., 2021 213 DSI-RF ProcS ~ > .05 −.19
DDT-RF ^^ ~ > .05 −.15
^^ ExP ~ > .05 −.19
DSI-LF WM ~ > .05 .06
DDT-LF ^^ ~ > .05 .14
(table continues)
333

334

O’Brien et al., 2021 213 DSI-LF ProcS + < .01 −.34
DDT-LF ^^ + < .05 −.25
^^ ExP + < .01 −.31
DSI-RF ^^ + < .05 .20
DDT-RF ^^ + < .05 .27
^^ ^^ + < .01 .31
Pinheiro et al., 2012 60 DDT Multi + .01 NR
Spatial processing Bergemalm & Lyxell, 2005 22 PhasAud WM + NR NR
^^ ^^ + NR NR
^^ ProcS + NR NR
^^ ^^ + NR NR
^^ ^^ + NR NR
^^ Fluid + NR NR
Glyde et al., 2013 80 LISN Multi ~
Humes et al., 2013 125 CRM WM ~ > .01 NR
Nixon et al., 2019 85 LISN-LC ExP + .01 .28
LISN-SA ^^ + .03 −.22
^^ VisP + .03 −.16
Other Biagianti et al., 2016 131 APS VisP + < .05 −.25
^^ ^^ + < .01 −.29
(table continues)


^^ ^^ + < .001 −.36
^^ ProcS + < .001 −.34
^^ Fluid + < .05 −.34
Biswas et al., 2016 21 SRhT WM ~ > .05 .25
^^ ^^ ~ > .05 .4
MBEA ^^ ~ > .05 .22
^^ ^^ ~ > .05 .24
BAT ^^ ~ > .05 .37
Biswas et al., 2016 21 SRhT WM + < .01 .55
MBEA ^^ + < .05 .44
BAT ^^ + < .05 −.48

^^ ^^ + < .05 .47
Jain et al., 2022 60 CompAP WM + < .001 .58
Lentz et al., 2022 155 HarMis WM + < .001 −.35
Note. Correlations indicated using “positive” (+), “negative” (−), or “null” (~) symbols. ^^ signifies “same as above.” A- = Aided; APS = Auditory Processing
Speech; Bab = Babble; BAT = Beat Alignment Test; Café = Cafeteria Noise; Comp = Composite; Digit = Digits; Dis = Discrimination; DiSpch = Dichotic Speech;
DSI = Dichotic Sentence Identification; ExP = Executive Processes; Fluc = Fluctuating Noise; Fluid = fluid intelligence; FS = FineStructure; Gap = Gap Detection;
HarMis = Harmonic Mistuning; LC = Low Cue; Mas = Masking; Mod = Modulated Noise; ModD = Modulation Detection; Multi = multiple-domains; Sent = Sen-
tences; Or = Order; PhasAud = Phase Audiometry; ProcS = processing speed; SA = Spatial Advantage; Sent# = Sentences in #-talker masker; SIN = Speech in
Noise; Spch = Speech; Stat = Stationary Noise; SRhT= Seashore Rhythm Test; Steady = Steady State Noise; StrSeg = Stream Segregation; Temp = Temporal;
UnMod = Unmodulated Noise; VisP = visual perception; Vocod = Vocoded; WM = working memory.
335

336

Table A2. Correlations between electrophysiologic auditory measures and cognitive constructs.
Electrophysiologic construct Study N Measure Cognitive construct Correlation p value Effect size
Mismatch negativity Bonetti et al., 2018 86 Amplitude WM ~ .97 .14

Bonetti et al., 2018^^ 86 Amplitude WM + < .05 .37
Brückmann et al., 2021 54 Latency Multi ~ .53 .09
Amplitude ^^ ~ .75 −.05
Kärgel et al., 2014 56 Amplitude WM ~ .65 −.07
^^ ^^ ~ .88 −.03
^^ ProcS ~ .97 -.01
^^ ExP ~ .81 -.04
Latency ^^ ~ .94 .01
^^ ProcS ~ .23 .20
^^ WM ~ .64 .08
Kärgel et al., 2014^^ 56 Latency WM + .01 .40
^^ ^^ + .02 .38
Naismith et al., 2012 34 Amplitude Multi ~ .97 .01
^^ ProcS ~ .96 −.01
^^ ExP ~ .78 .07
^^ WM ~ .58 .01
Auditory brainstem response Bergemalm & Lyxell, 2005 22 ABR WM + NR NR
^^ ^^ + NR NR
^^ ProcS + NR NR
^^ ^^ + NR NR
^^ ^^ + NR NR
^^ Fluid + NR NR
Delano et al., 2020 101 Wave 1 ExP ~ .21 .14
^^ ^^ ~ .82 −.02
^^ WM ~ .33 −.10
Delano et al., 2020^^ 101 Wave 1 ProcS + .05 .20
^^ ^^ + .01 −.27
Kamerer et al., 2019 32 Speech WM ~ NR NR
Speech WM + NR .57
(table continues)

P50 Hamilton et al., 2018 93 Ratio Multi ~ .74 −.06

Hamilton et al., 2018^^ 93 Ratio Multi + .01 −.41
Hsieh et al., 2004 20 Suppression WM ~ > .05 .06
^^ ^^ ~ > .05 .04
^^ ^^ ~ > .05 .17
^^ ^^ ~ > .05 .43
Sánchez-Morla et al., 2013 225 Ratio Multi ~ .28 .02
^^ ProcS ~ .35 .09
^^ ^^ ~ .77 −.03
^^ WM ~ .06 .02
^^ ^^ ~ .60 −.13
^^ Multi ~ .56 −.19
^^ VisP ~ .08 −.18
^^ ExP ~ .90 .06
^^ ^^ ~ .99 .06
^^ ^^ ~ .50 .09
Difference ^^ ~ .50 −.07
^^ ^^ ~ .90 .01
^^ ^^ ~ .99 −.10
^^ VisP ~ .08 .04
^^ Multi ~ .56 .15
^^ WM ~ .06 .03
^^ ^^ ~ .60 .12
^^ ProcS ~ .35 −.08
^^ ^^ ~ .77 .07
^^ Multi ~ .28 .10
Thomas et al., 2010 53 Suppression WM + .01 −.46
^^ Multi + .003 −.49
Xia et al., 2020 70 Ratio Multi ~ > .05 NR
Yadon et al., 2009 25 Suppression ExP ~ > .05 −.01
Yadon et al., 2009^^ 25 Suppression ExP + .01 −.52
^^ ^^ + .02 .45
337
(table continues)

338

N100 Cooray et al., 2008 180 Amplitude Multi + < .04 .25
Latency ^^ + < .003 −.35
^^ ^^ + < .001 −.29
^^ ^^ + < .01 −.25
^^ ^^ + < .01 −.22
^^ ^^ + < .03 −.20
^^ ^^ + < .01 −.22
^^ ^^ + < .03 −.20
Hsieh et al., 2004 20 Suppression WM ~ > .05 .35
^^ ^^ ~ > .05 .52
Hsieh et al., 2004^^ 20 Suppression WM + < .01 .79
^^ ^^ + < .01 .76
N200 Bodis-Wollner et al., 1995 50 Latency WM + < .025 −.45
^^ Multi ~ > .10 −.06
Folmer et al., 2021 70 Amplitude Multi + < .02 .39
Pang et al., 1990 43 Mean Fluid ~ < .10 −.33
^^ VisP ~ > .10 −.32
^^ ^^ ~ < .10 −.34
^^ Fluid ~ > .10 −.30
^^ ^^ ~ > .10 −.35
Pang et al., 1990^^ 43 Mean Multi + < .05 −.42
^^ WM + < .001 −.70
^^ VisP + < .01 −.54
Pokryszko-Dragan et al., 21 Amplitude Multi ~ NR NR
2009
^^ ^^ ~ NR NR
Pokryszko-Dragan et al., 21 Latency ExP + < .05 .54
2009^^
^^ WM + < .05 .49
Stuckenschneider et al., 26 Amplitude ProcS ~ .06 .37
2020
(table continues)

Stuckenschneider et al., 26 Amplitude Multi + < .001 −.75

2020
^^ ProcS + < .001 −.65
^^ ExP + .001 −.60
^^ ProcS + .04 .41
Latency Multi + < .001 −.71
^^ ExP + .01 .48
^^ ProcS + < .001 .72
^^ ^^ + .03 −.43
^^ ^^ + < .001 −.79
P200 Nagasawa et al., 1999 20 Amplitude ExP + < .05 .50
Nagasawa et al., 1999 20 ^^ WM ~ > .05 −.11
Oliveira et al., 2021 30 Amplitude Multi + < .001 .45
Stuckenschneider et al., 26 Latency ExP ~ .21 .26
2020
^^ ProcS ~ .49 −.14
^^ ^^ ~ .14 −.30
Amplitude ExP ~ .06 .37
^^ ProcS ~ .11 −.32
^^ ^^ ~ .24 −.24
2020^^
^^ ProcS + .01 .49
Latency Multi + .03 −.43
^^ ProcS + .02 .45
P300 Bodis-Wollner et al., 1995 50 Latency Multi ~ > .10 −.03
^^ WM ~ > .10 −.28
Cooray et al., 2008 180 Amplitude Multi + < .003 .35
^^ ^^ + < .003 .27
^^ ^^ + < .02 .21
Latency ^^ + < .01 −.24
^^ ^^ + < .05 −.18
(table continues)
339

340
Dichter et al., 2006 25 Amplitude Fluid ~ > .05 .39

^^ WM ~ > .05 −.06
^^ ExP ~ > .05 −.34
^^ ^^ ~ > .05 .32
^^ ^^ ~ > .05 .16
^^ ProcS ~ > .05 −.29
Latency Fluid ~ > .05 −.15
^^ WM ~ > .05 .33
^^ ProcS ~ > .05 .22
^^ ExP ~ > .05 .43
^^ ^^ ~ > .05 .001
^^ ^^ ~ > .05 −.27
Dichter et al., 2006^^ 25 Amplitude ProcS + < .05 −.69
^^ ExP + < .05 −72
Latency ^^ + < .05 .69
^^ WM + < .05 .71
^^ ExP + < .05 −.70
Gurrera et al., 2005 43 Amplitude WM + < .01 .54
^^ ProcS + < .01 .43
Latency WM + < .05 −.34
^^ ^^ + < .05 −.33
^^ ProcS + < .05 −.32
^^ ExP + < .05 −.33
Hayashi et al., 1993 53 Latency Multi ~ < .05 NR
Katada et al., 2003 13 Amplitude Multi ~ > .05 NR
Latency ^^ ~ > .05 NR
Katada et al., 2003^^ 13 Latency Multi + < .01 .68
Katsarou et al., 2004 85 Latency WM ~ > .05 −.03
^^ ^^ ~ > .05 .26
Amplitude ^^ ~ > .05 NR
^^ ^^ ~ > .05 NR
Katsarou et al., 2004^^ 85 Latency Fluid + < .02 −.35
^^ ExP + < .001 .49
(table continues)

Krishnamurthy et al., 2019 84 Latency Multi ~ .08 .19

Amplitude ^^ ~ .21 .14
Marsh et al., 1990 35 Latency Multi + < .001 −.58
De Miranda et al., 2012 60 Latency Multi ~ > .05 NR
^^ ^^ ~ > .05 NR
Nagasawa et al., 1999 20 Amplitude VisP + < .01 .65
Neshige et al., 1988 27 Amplitude Multi ~ > .05 NR
Neshige et al., 1988^^ 27 Latency Multi + < .001 −.71
Ozcan et al., 2016 72 Amplitude ExP + ≤.05 −.39
Pang et al., 1990 43 Mean Fluid ~ < .10 −.45
^^ ^^ ~ > .10 −.24
^^ VisP ~ > .10 −.22
^^ Fluid ~ > .10 −.19
Pang et al., 1990^^ 43 Mean Multi + < .05 −.37
^^ WM + < .01 −.62

^^ VisP + < .05 −.44
^^ ^^ + < .05 −.44
Podemski et al., 2008 61 Latency Multi ~ > .05 NR
^^ ^^ ~ > .05 NR
^^ ExP ~ > .05 NR
Amplitude Multi ~ > .05 NR
^^ ExP ~ > .05 NR
Podemski et al., 2008^^ 61 Amplitude Multi + .03 −.45
Pokryszko-Dragan et al., 26 Latency Multi + < .05 .66
2003
Pokryszko-Dragan et al., 21 Amplitude Multi ~ NR NR
2009
^^ ^^ ~ NR NR
^^ ExP ~ NR NR
Latency ^^ ~ NR NR
^^ Multi ~ NR NR
^^ ^^ ~ NR NR
Portin et al., 2000 200 Latency WM ~ > .05 −.04
341
^^ ^^ ~ > .05 −.02

(table continues)

342
Portin et al., 2000^^ 200 Latency ^^ + < .05 −.19

Amplitude ^^ + < .01 .24
Stuckenschneider et al., 26 Latency ExP ~ .06 .37
2020
^^ ProcS ~ .16 −.28
Amplitude ExP ~ .08 .36
2020^^
^^ ProcS + .002 .57
^^ ^^ + .05 −.39
^^ ^^ + .02 −.45
Latency Multi + < .001 .74
^^ ProcS + .01 .53
^^ ^^ + .02 −.45
Tanaka et al., 2000 69 Amplitude Multi + .03 .40
Latency ^^ + .02 −.43
Volpato et al., 2010 41 Amplitude Fluid + .02 .43
^^ WM + .02 .47
^^ ExP + .05 −.42
Latency WM + .04 −.39
^^ ^^ + .01 −.41
^^ ^^ + .004 −.56
Zeng et al., 2017 96 Latency Multi ~ .40 −.10
Amplitude ^^ ~ .78 .03
Zeng et al., 2017^^ 96 Latency Multi + < .01 −.59
Amplitude ^^ + < .01 .77
Note. Correlations indicated using “positive” (+), “negative” (−), or “null” (~) symbols. ^^ signifies “same as above.” ABR = auditory brainstem response; ExP =
Executive Processes; Fluid = Fluid Intelligence; Multi = Multiple-Domains; ProcS = Processing Speed; VisP = Visual Perception; WM = Working Memory.

Table A3. Relationships examined in only one study.
Significant Nonsignificant Mixed findings
Working memory
Behavioral Electro Behavioral Electro Behavioral Electro
CompAP ABR A-Sent/SS ABR1 ATTR ABRSp
Gap N200M CompTP P200A BAT N100S
HarMis P300M CRM P50D MBEA MMNL
PhasAud DSI-LF P50R SRhT
Sent4 Envelope VCV
SentSteady LPFS
TempMask PPS
TimeDis Sent1
SentFluc
SSI-CCM
SSI-ICM
StrSeg
VocodSpch
WordsBab
Words/W
Processing speed
APS ABR ATTR MMNL A-Sent/SS N200A
CompSIN ABR1 DDT-RF P50R N200L
DSI-LF DSI-RF P50D P200A
Gap IPD JND P200L
ILD JND Sent4k
IPD Freq Sent16k
PhasAud WIN
Sent2 Words/W
SentCafe
Envelope
TempOr
TimeDis
WordsBab
343
(table continues)

344
DDT-LF N200A ILD JND ABR1 ATTR P50S
DiSpch-FR SentBab MMNL DDT-RF
DiSpch-RF SSI-CCM P200L Sent1
DSI-RF SSI-ICM P50R WordsW
IPD Freq WIN
IPD JND
LISN-LC
LISN-SA
QSIN
TempFS
TimeDis
VCV
VocodSpch
Words1
Fluid intelligence
APS ABR CompSIN N200M P300M
Gap DDT
PhasAud VocodSpch
TCSpch
Visual perception
APS P300A SentSS P50R N200M
Gap SSI-CCM P50D P300M
LISN-SA SSI-ICM
QSIN Words/W
WIN
(table continues)

DiCV N100A GIN MMNL ATTR
Duration N100L ILD JND P50D
Gap N200M IPD Freq
Sent4 P200L IPD JND
SentBab P300M LISN
TCSpch P50S TempMask
TempFS Words/W
WIN
Note. A- = Aided; A = Amplitude; ABR1 = Wave1; APS = Auditory Processing Speech; Bab = Babble; BAT = Beat Alignment Test; Café = Cafeteria Noise;
Comp = Composite; D = Difference; Dis = Discrimination; DiSpch = Dichotic Speech; DSI = Dichotic Sentence Identification; Fluc = Fluctuating Noise; FS =
FineStructure; Gap = Gap Detection; HarMis = Harmonic Mistuning; L = Latency; LC = Low Cue; M = Mean; Mas = Masking; Sent = Sentences; Or = Order;
PhasAud = Phase Audiometry; R = Ratio; S = Suppression; SA = Spatial Advantage; Sent# = Sentences in #-talker masker; SIN = Speech in Noise; Sp =
Speech; Spch = Speech; SRhT= Seashore Rhythm Test; Steady = Steady State Noise; StrSeg = Stream Segregation; Temp = Temporal; Vocod = Vocoded; W =
White Noise.
345

Davidson Souza 2023 Relationships Between Auditory Processing and Cognitive Abilities in Adults A Systematic Review

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Davidson Souza 2023 Relationships Between Auditory Processing and Cognitive Abilities in Adults A Systematic Review

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Review Article

Relationships Between Auditory Processing and

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Communication under adverse listening conditions—

A large body of work also recognizes the role of

Downloaded from: https://pubs.asha.org 207.248.194.73 on 02/01/2024, Terms of Use: https://pubs.asha.org/pubs/rights_and_permissions

Downloaded from: https://pubs.asha.org 207.248.194.73 on 02/01/2024, Terms of Use: https://pubs.asha.org/pubs/rights_and_permissions

Characteristics of Included Studies Audiology (seven), Journal of Speech, Language, and

No. of sig No. of nonsig

Downloaded from: https://pubs.asha.org 207.248.194.73 on 02/01/2024, Terms of Use: https://pubs.asha.org/pubs/rights_and_permissions

No. of sig No. of nonsig

No. of sig No. of nonsig

Downloaded from: https://pubs.asha.org 207.248.194.73 on 02/01/2024, Terms of Use: https://pubs.asha.org/pubs/rights_and_permissions

No. of sig No. of nonsig

Electrophysiologic auditory No. of nonsig

Downloaded from: https://pubs.asha.org 207.248.194.73 on 02/01/2024, Terms of Use: https://pubs.asha.org/pubs/rights_and_permissions

Electrophysiologic auditory No. of nonsig

Downloaded from: https://pubs.asha.org 207.248.194.73 on 02/01/2024, Terms of Use: https://pubs.asha.org/pubs/rights_and_permissions

Variable Significant Nonsignificant

Variable Significant Nonsignificant

Downloaded from: https://pubs.asha.org 207.248.194.73 on 02/01/2024, Terms of Use: https://pubs.asha.org/pubs/rights_and_permissions

Variable Significant Nonsignificant

Variable Significant Nonsignificant

Downloaded from: https://pubs.asha.org 207.248.194.73 on 02/01/2024, Terms of Use: https://pubs.asha.org/pubs/rights_and_permissions

Downloaded from: https://pubs.asha.org 207.248.194.73 on 02/01/2024, Terms of Use: https://pubs.asha.org/pubs/rights_and_permissions

Downloaded from: https://pubs.asha.org 207.248.194.73 on 02/01/2024, Terms of Use: https://pubs.asha.org/pubs/rights_and_permissions

Downloaded from: https://pubs.asha.org 207.248.194.73 on 02/01/2024, Terms of Use: https://pubs.asha.org/pubs/rights_and_permissions

Downloaded from: https://pubs.asha.org 207.248.194.73 on 02/01/2024, Terms of Use: https://pubs.asha.org/pubs/rights_and_permissions

Downloaded from: https://pubs.asha.org 207.248.194.73 on 02/01/2024, Terms of Use: https://pubs.asha.org/pubs/rights_and_permissions

Downloaded from: https://pubs.asha.org 207.248.194.73 on 02/01/2024, Terms of Use: https://pubs.asha.org/pubs/rights_and_permissions

Behavioral auditory Auditory Cognitive Effect size

Castiglione et al., 2019 166 SentSS Multi + < .001 −.54

Downloaded from: https://pubs.asha.org 207.248.194.73 on 02/01/2024, Terms of Use: https://pubs.asha.org/pubs/rights_and_permissions

Appendix (p. 2 of 21)

Table A1. (Continued).

Behavioral auditory Auditory Cognitive Effect size

Downloaded from: https://pubs.asha.org 207.248.194.73 on 02/01/2024, Terms of Use: https://pubs.asha.org/pubs/rights_and_permissions

Table A1. (Continued).

Behavioral auditory Auditory Cognitive Effect size

Millman & Mattys, 2017 30 SentSS WM + .05 .40

Downloaded from: https://pubs.asha.org 207.248.194.73 on 02/01/2024, Terms of Use: https://pubs.asha.org/pubs/rights_and_permissions

Appendix (p. 4 of 21)

Table A1. (Continued).

Behavioral auditory Auditory Cognitive Effect size

Downloaded from: https://pubs.asha.org 207.248.194.73 on 02/01/2024, Terms of Use: https://pubs.asha.org/pubs/rights_and_permissions

Table A1. (Continued).

Behavioral auditory Auditory Cognitive Effect size

Souza & Arehart, 2015 124 QSIN WM + .02 −.18

Downloaded from: https://pubs.asha.org 207.248.194.73 on 02/01/2024, Terms of Use: https://pubs.asha.org/pubs/rights_and_permissions

Appendix (p. 6 of 21)

Table A1. (Continued).

Behavioral auditory Auditory Cognitive Effect size

Downloaded from: https://pubs.asha.org 207.248.194.73 on 02/01/2024, Terms of Use: https://pubs.asha.org/pubs/rights_and_permissions

Behavioral auditory Auditory Cognitive Effect size

^^ ^^ + < .01 −.31

Lentz et al., 2022 155 StrSeg WM ~ .35 −.08

Downloaded from: https://pubs.asha.org 207.248.194.73 on 02/01/2024, Terms of Use: https://pubs.asha.org/pubs/rights_and_permissions

Appendix (p. 8 of 21)

Behavioral auditory Auditory Cognitive Effect size

Downloaded from: https://pubs.asha.org 207.248.194.73 on 02/01/2024, Terms of Use: https://pubs.asha.org/pubs/rights_and_permissions

Table A1. (Continued).

Behavioral auditory Auditory Cognitive Effect size

^^ WM + < .05 .48