Cover not available
Part of
Bilingualism, Executive Function, and Beyond: Questions and insights
Edited by Irina A. Sekerina, Lauren Spradlin and Virginia Valian
[Studies in Bilingualism 57] 2019
► pp. 103–116

Chapter 7
Interference control in bilingual auditory sentence processing in noise

| The Graduate Center of the City University of New York
| The Graduate Center of the City University of New York | Brooklyn College, City University of New York | Bárczi Gusztáv Faculty of Special Education, Eötvös Loránd University, Hungary
| The Graduate Center of the City University of New York

Listening to speech in the presence of interfering auditory stimuli is a well-studied phenomenon in second language (L2) listeners. L2 auditory processing has been associated with various individual factors, such as listeners’ L2 linguistic and contextual knowledge and L2 proficiency (Cutler, 2005). How efficiently and skillfully participants manage auditory interference may also be closely related to their ability to stay attentive to the target and suppress the irrelevant auditory stimuli. This review discusses the factors that modulate L2 auditory processing in noise and describes the underlying mechanisms of auditory interference control in bilingual individuals. Furthermore, we review the potential interaction between L2 proficiency and interference control in bilinguals.

Keywords: auditory comprehension, L2 listening, listening in noise, interference control, L2 proficiency
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1Mechanisms of interference control in auditory processing in noise
      • 1.1.1Taxonomies of interference control
      • 1.1.2Selective attention for auditory processing in noise
  • 2.Interference in auditory processing
    • 2.1Noise affecting bottom-up linguistic processing and the role of contextual knowledge
    • 2.2Noise affecting top-down linguistic processing
    • 2.3Interference in bilingual auditory processing
      • 3.1.1Sources of interference in bilingual listening
  • 3.Bilingual advantage in auditory processing in noise
    • 3.3Potential roles of L2 proficiency and other related variables
  • 4.Conclusion and implications
  • Note
  • References
Published online: 12 June 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sibil.57.07kim
References
Avivi-Reich, M., Bae, M. H., Kang, Y., & Schneider, B. A.
(2012) Listening to semantically anomalous sentences masked by noise and competing speech in a second language: A cross-language study on Korean-English bilinguals. Proceedings of Fechner Day, 28(1), 74–78.Google Scholar
Bialystok, E., Craik, F. I., & Luk, G.
(2012) Bilingualism: Consequences for mind and brain. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 16(4), 240–250. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bidelman, G. M., & Dexter, L.
(2015) Bilinguals at the “cocktail party”: Dissociable neural activity in auditory–linguistic brain regions reveals neurobiological basis for nonnative listeners’ speech-in-noise recognition deficits. Brain and Language, 143, 32–41. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bradlow, A. R., & Alexander, J. A.
(2007) Semantic and phonetic enhancements for speech-in-noise recognition by native and non-native listeners. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 121(4), 2339–2349. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brouwer, S., Van Engen, K. J., Calandruccio, L., & Bradlow, A. R.
(2012) Linguistic contributions to speech-on-speech masking for native and non-native listeners: Language familiarity and semantic content. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 131(2), 1449–1464. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Calandruccio, L., Brouwer, S., Van Engen, K. J., Dhar, S., & Bradlow, A. R.
(2013) Masking release due to linguistic and phonetic dissimilarity between the target and masker speech. American Journal of Audiology, 22(1), 157–164. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Calandruccio, L., Dhar, S., & Bradlow, A. R.
(2010) Speech-on-speech masking with variable access to the linguistic content of the masker speech. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 128(2), 860–869. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010) Speech-on-speech masking with variable access to the linguistic content of the masker speech. e Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 128(2), 860–869. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., Swami, V., Terrado, A., & Furnham, A.
(2009) The effects of background auditory interference and extraversion on creative and cognitive task performance. International Journal of Psychological Studies, 1(2), 2. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cocchini, G., Logie, R. H., Della Sala, S., MacPherson, S. E., & Baddeley, A. D.
(2002) Concurrent performance of two memory tasks: Evidence for domain-specific working memory systems. Memory & Cognition, 30(7), 1086–1095. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Collins, A. M., & Loftus, E. F.
(1975) A spreading-activation theory of semantic processing. Psychological Review, 82(6), 407. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cooke, M., Garcia Lecumberri, M. L., & Barker, J.
(2008) The foreign language cocktail party problem: Energetic and informational masking effects in non-native speech perception. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 123(1), 414–427. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Costa, A., Hernández, M., Costa-Faidella, J., & Sebastián-Gallés, N.
(2009) On the bilingual advantage in conflict processing: Now you see it, now you don’t. Cognition, 113(2), 135–149. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cutler, A.
(2005) Why is it so hard to understand a second language in noise?. Newsletter, American Association of Teachers of Slavic and East European Languages, 48, 16–16.Google Scholar
Cutler, A., Weber, A., Smits, R., & Cooper, N.
(2004) Patterns of English phoneme confusions by native and non-native listeners. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 116(6), 3668–3678. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dell, G. S.
(1986) A spreading-activation theory of retrieval in sentence production. Psychological Review, 93(3), 283. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ezzatian, P., Avivi, M., & Schneider, B. A.
(2010) Do nonnative listeners benefit as much as native listeners from spatial cues that release speech from masking? Speech Communication, 52(11), 919–929. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Filippi, R., Leech, R., Thomas, M. S., Green, D. W., & Dick, F.
(2012) A bilingual advantage in controlling language interference during sentence comprehension. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 15(4), 858–872. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Friedman, N. P., & Miyake, A.
(2004) The relations among inhibition and interference control functions: A latent-variable analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133(1), 101–135. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gilsky, E. L.
(2007) Changes in cognitive function in human aging. In D. R. Riddle (Ed.), Brain aging: Models, Methods, and Mechanisms (pp. 3–20). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press/Taylor & Francis. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Golestani, N., Hervais-Adelman, A., Obleser, J., & Scott, S. K.
(2013) Semantic versus perceptual interactions in neural processing of speech-in-noise. Neuroimage, 79, 52–61. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Golumbic, E. M. Z., Ding, N., Bickel, S., Lakatos, P., Schevon, C. A., McKhann, G. M., … & Poeppel, D.
(2013) Mechanisms underlying selective neuronal tracking of attended speech at a “cocktail party”. Neuron, 77(5), 980–991. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hervais-Adelman, A., Pefkou, M., & Golestani, N.
(2014) Bilingual speech-in-noise: Neural bases of semantic context use in the native language. Brain and Language, 132, 1–6. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Karns, C. M., Isbell, E., Giuliano, R. J., & Neville, H. J.
(2015) Auditory attention in childhood and adolescence: An event-related potential study of spatial selective attention to one of two simultaneous stories. Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience, 13, 53–67. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krizman, J., Bradlow, A. R., Lam, S. S. Y., & Kraus, N.
(2017) How bilinguals listen in noise: Linguistic and non-linguistic factors. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 20(4), 834–843. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leech, R., Aydelott, J., Symons, G., Carnevale, J., & Dick, F.
(2007) The development of sentence interpretation: Effects of perceptual, attentional and semantic interference. Developmental Science, 10(6), 794–813. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lucks Mendel, L., & Widner, H.
(2016) Speech perception in noise for bilingual listeners with normal hearing. International journal of audiology, 55(2), 126–134. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marsh, J. E., Hughes, R. W., & Jones, D. M.
(2009) Interference by process, not content, determines semantic auditory distraction. Cognition, 110(1), 23–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marsh, J. E., Sörqvist, P., Hodgetts, H. M., Beaman, C. P., & Jones, D. M.
(2015) Distraction control processes in free recall: Benefits and costs to performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 41(1), 118. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marton, K., Eichorn, N., Campanelli, L., & Zakarias, L.
(2016) Working memory and interference control in children with specific language impairment. Language and Linguistics Compass, 10(5), 211–224. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mayo, L. H., Florentine, M., & Buus, S.
(1997) Age of second-language acquisition and perception of speech in noise. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 40(3), 686–693. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Melara, R. D., Rao, A., & Tong, Y.
(2002) The duality of selection: Excitatory and inhibitory processes in auditory selective attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 28(2), 279. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mercier, J., Pivneva, I., & Titone, D.
(2016) The role of prior language context on bilingual spoken word processing: Evidence from the visual world task. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 19(2), 376–399. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Murphy, D. R., McDowd, J. M., & Wilcox, K. A.
(1999) Inhibition and aging: Similarities between younger and older adults as revealed by the processing of unattended auditory information. Psychology and Aging, 14(1), 44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Neill, W. T.
(1977) Inhibitory and facilitatory processes in selective attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 3(3), 444. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Prior, A., & MacWhinney, B.
(2010) A bilingual advantage in task switching. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 13(2), 253–262. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rao, A., Zhang, Y., & Miller, S.
(2010) Selective listening of concurrent auditory stimuli: An event-related potential study. Hearing Research, 268(1), 123–132. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rouleau, N., & Belleville, S.
(1996) Irrelevant speech effect in aging: An assessment of inhibitory processes in working memory. The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 51(6), P356–P363. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Salamé, P., & Baddeley, A.
(1982) Disruption of short-term memory by unattended speech: Implications for the structure of working memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 21(2), 150–164. DOI logo>Google Scholar
Sarter, M., Givens, B., & Bruno, J. P.
(2001) The cognitive neuroscience of sustained attention: Where top-down meets bottom-up. Brain Research Reviews, 35(2), 146–160. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shi, L.-F.
(2011) How “proficient” is proficient? Subjective proficiency measure as a predictor of bilingual listeners’ recognition of English words. American Journal of Audiology, 19, 19–32. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013) How “proficient” is proficient? Comparison of English and relative proficiency rating as a predictor of bilingual listeners’ word recognition. American Journal of Audiology, 21, 40–52. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shi, L. F.
(2015) How “proficient” is proficient? Bilingual listeners’ recognition of English words in noise. American Journal of Audiology, 24(1), 53–65. DOI logo>Google Scholar
Sorqvist, P., & Ronnberg, J.
(2012) Episodic long-term memory of spoken discourse masked by Speech: What is the role for working memory capacity? Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research, 55(1), 210–218. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Soveri, A., Laine, M., Hämäläinen, H., & Hugdahl, K.
(2011) Bilingual advantage in attentional control: Evidence from the forced-attention dichotic listening paradigm. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 14(3), 371–378. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tillman, T. W., & Carhart, R.
(1966) An expanded test for speech discrimination utilizing CNC monosyllabic words: Northwestern University Auditory Test No. 6. Northwestern University Evanston Il Auditory Research Lab. [URL]Google Scholar
Turner, M. L., Johnson, S. K., McNamara, D. S., & Engle, R. W.
(1992) Effects of same-modality interference on immediate serial recall of auditory and visual information. The Journal of General Psychology, 119(3), 247–263. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wood, S., Hiscock, M., & Widrig, M.
(2000) Selective attention fails to alter the dichotic listening lag effect: Evidence that the lag effect is preattentional. Brain and Language, 71(3), 373–390. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wu, S., & Ma, Z.
(2016) Suppression and working memory in auditory comprehension of L2 narratives: Evidence from cross-modal priming. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 45(5), 1115–1135. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Guediche, Sara, Martijn Baart & Arthur G. Samuel
2020. Semantic priming effects can be modulated by crosslinguistic interactions during second-language auditory word recognition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 23:5 ► pp. 1082 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 23 march 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.