Sajjadi · Hearing research 2026 · Cross-sectional comparative study · n=88

Investigating the contribution of peripheral hearing sensitivity, central auditory factors, and cognitive factors on the recognition of time-compressed speech.

Cited 0 times in the scientific literature.

Level 4 - case-series / case-control

Cross-sectional observational study comparing age and hearing cohorts

PubMed 42556074 · doi:10.1016/j.heares.2026.109765 · record verified 2026-08-26

What was done

Electrophysiological, cognitive, and behavioral assessments were evaluated across three groups: 30 younger normal-hearing adults, 32 older normal-hearing adults, and 26 older hearing-impaired adults (total n = 88). Subcortical envelope-following responses to monosyllabic words and cortical envelope tracking to continuous speech were measured at 0% and 40% time compression. Cognitive function was assessed with the NIH Toolbox, and behavioral time-compressed sentence recognition was measured adaptively to find the compression ratio yielding 50% accuracy.

What was found

Younger adults demonstrated stronger subcortical envelope encoding than older adults, and phase-locking decreased under time compression across all groups. Cortical envelope tracking was higher in older adults (both normal-hearing and hearing-impaired) compared to younger adults, and tracking increased with time compression. Younger participants showed superior processing speed and tolerated higher time-compression ratios for 50% accuracy. Audiometric thresholds, cortical envelope tracking to natural-rate speech, and processing speed significantly predicted speech recognition performance. The abstract reports no numerical values, test statistics, or p-values.

Why it matters

This study shows how peripheral hearing, cortical tracking, and cognitive processing speed independently contribute to speech-understanding deficits at fast speaking rates. It suggests that cortical envelope tracking aids recognition primarily when acoustic temporal cues are preserved.

Limits

The study relies on a cross-sectional design with a moderate sample size (n = 88 across three groups), limiting causal inference regarding aging trajectories. The abstract provides no exact quantitative effect sizes, confidence intervals, or p-values, and testing was conducted without competing background noise.

Cited by