Different Attention Domains and Speech-in-Noise Performance: A Preliminary Study

<b>Purpose:</b> The primary aim of this preliminary study was to explore the relationship between five attention domains, cognitive flexibility, and speech-in-noise (SIN) performance in both auditory-only (AO) and audiovisual (AV) modalities. <b>Methods:</b> Ten younger and 10 middle-aged adult participants who had standard pure-tone averages no greater than 15 dB HL completed the following three behavioral measures. The Multimodal Lexical Sentence Test for Adults (Kirk et al, 2012) was used to evaluate speech-in-noise performance in AO and AV modalities. Two lists of 12 sentences were presented at a fixed 0-dB signal-to-noise ratio for each of the AO and AV conditions. The Attention Processing Training test (Sohlberg and Mateer, 2005) was administered to each participant, presented bilaterally at 60 dB HL via insert earphones to assess five domains of attention: sustained attention (I), complex sustained attention (II), selective attention (III), divided attention (IV), and alternating attention (V). The Comprehensive Trail-Making Test, Second Edition (Reynolds, 2019) was administered to assess participants' inhibitory control and cognitive flexibility, which are heavily influenced by attention. <b>Results:</b> Correlation and regression analyses of these sample data indicated a significant link between alternating attention and SIN performance in the auditory modality in the younger adults. This link was not observed in middle-aged adults, nor for audiovisual SIN performance. <b>Conclusions:</b> In this study sample, younger individuals with better alternating attention abilities were able to better use contextual information to understand speech in noisy situations without visual context support. The younger adults capitalized on their alternating attention capacities to improve their auditory-only SIN performance, whereas the middle-aged adults did not demonstrate this ability despite similar (sometimes better) alternating attention scores. Alternating attention was not used in the AV modality in either group, possibly due to the simultaneous demand of visual and auditory inputs.