Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T05:34:50.329Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

10 - The Ease of Language Understanding Model

from Part II - Models and Measures

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 July 2022

By
Jerker Rönnberg ,
Emil Holmer  and
Mary Rudner
Edited by
John W. Schwieter  and
Zhisheng (Edward) Wen
John W. Schwieter
Affiliation:
Wilfrid Laurier University
Zhisheng (Edward) Wen
Affiliation:
Hong Kong Shue Yan University
Get access

Summary

To conceptualize the communicative role of working memory (WM), the Ease-of-Language Understanding (ELU) model was proposed (e.g., Rönnberg, 2003; Rönnberg et al., 2008, 2013, 2019, 2020). The model states that ease of language understanding is determined by the speed and accuracy with which the signal is matched to existing multimodal language representations. When matching is fast and complete, language understanding is effortless; this process may be facilitated by predictions based on the contents of WM. However, when the contents of the language signal mismatches with existing representations, WM is triggered to access knowledge in semantic long-term memory (SLTM) and personal experience from episodic long-term memory (ELTM) – promoting inference-making and postdictions in WM. The interplay between WM and LTM is fundamental to language understanding; its efficiency becomes apparent in adverse conditions and its breakdown may explain cognitive decline and dementia. Empirical support, limitations, and future studies will be discussed.

Keywords

Ease-of-Language Understanding (ELU) model hearinghearing losscognitionmemory systemsworking memoryepisodic memorysemantic memorylong-term memorydementia
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Working Memory and Language , pp. 197 - 218
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2022

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Andin, J., Holmer, E., Schönström, K., & Rudner, M. (2021). Working memory for signs with poor visual resolution: fMRI evidence of reorganization of auditory cortex in deaf signers. Cerebral Cortex. 31(7), 3165–3176.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Alickovic, E., Lunner, T., Gustafsson, F., & Ljung, L. (2019). A tutorial on auditory attention identification methods. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 13, 153.Google Scholar
Anderson, S., White-Schwoch, T., Parbery-Clark, A., & Kraus, N. (2013). A cognitive system supports speech-in-noise perception in older adults. Hearing Research, 300, 218–232.Google Scholar
Arehart, K. H., Souza, P., Baca, R., & Kates, J. M. (2013). Working memory, age, and hearing loss: Susceptibility to hearing aid distortion. Ear and Hearing, 34(3), 251–260.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Arlinger, S., Lunner, T., Lyxell, B., & Pichora-Fuller, M. (2009). The emergence of cognitive hearing science. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 50, 371–384Google Scholar
Ayasse, N., Penn, L., & Wingfield, A. (2019). Variations within normal hearing acuity and speech comprehension: An exploratory study. American Journal of Audiology, 28(2), 369–375.Google Scholar
Baddeley, A. (2000). The episodic buffer: A new component of working memory? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4(11), 417–423.Google Scholar
Baddeley, A. D. (2012). Working memory: Theories, models, and controversies. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 1–29.Google Scholar
Baltes, P. B., & Lindenberger, U. (1997). Emergence of a powerful connection between sensory and cognitive functions across the adult lifespan: A new window to the study of cognitive aging? Psychology and Aging, 12(1), 12–21.Google Scholar
Barrouillet, P., & Camos, V. (2020). The time-based resource-sharing model of working memory. In Logie, R. H., Camos, V., Cowan, N. (Eds), Working memory: State of the science. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bavelier, D., Newman, A. J., Mukherjee, M., Hauser, P., Kemeny, S., Braun, A., et al. (2008). Encoding, rehearsal, and recall in signers and speakers: Shared network but differential engagement. Cerebral Cortex, 18, 2263–2274.Google Scholar
Blomberg, R., Danielsson, H., Rudner, M., Söderlund, G. B. W., & Rönnberg, J. (2019). Speech processing difficulties in Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1536.Google Scholar
Cardin, V., Orfanidou, E., Rönnberg, J., Capek, C. M., Rudner, M. & Woll, B. (2013). Dissociating cognitive and sensory neural plasticity in human superior temporal cortex. Nature Communications, 4, 1473.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cardin, V., Rudner, M., De Oliveira, R. F., Andin, J., Su, M. T., Beese, L., Woll, B., & Rönnberg, J. (2018). The organization of working memory networks is shaped by early sensory experience. Cerebral Cortex, 28(10), 3540–3554.Google Scholar
Classon, E., Rudner, M., & Rönnberg, J. (2013). Working memory compensates for hearing related phonological processing deficit. Journal of Communication Disorders, 46(1), 17–29.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cowan, N. (2005). Working memory capacity. Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Craik, F., & Tulving, E. (1975). Depth of processing and the retention of words in episodic memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 104(3), 268–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daneman, M., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). Individual differences in working memory and reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19(4), 450–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Decrui, L., Lesenfants, D., Vanthornhout, J., & Francart, T. (2020). Top-down modulation of neural envelope tracking: The interplay with behavioral, self-report and neural measures of listening effort. The European Journal of Neuroscience, 52(5), 3375–3393.Google Scholar
Ding, H., Ming, D., Wan, B., Li, Q., Qin, W., & Yu, C. (2016). Enhanced spontaneous functional connectivity of the superior temporal gyrus in early deafness. Scientific Reports, 6, 23239.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eriksson, J., Vogel, E. K., Lansner, A., Bergström, F., & Nyberg, L. (2015). Neurocognitive architecture of working memory. Neuron, 88(1), 33–46.Google Scholar
Farias, S. T., Lau, K., Harvey, D. J., Denny, K. G., Barba, C., & Mefford, A. N. (2017). Early functional limitations in cognitively normal older adults predict diagnostic conversion to mild cognitive impairment. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, AA65 (6), 1152–1158.Google Scholar
Foo, C., Rudner, M., Rönnberg, J., & Lunner, T. (2007). Recognition of speech in noise with new hearing instrument compression release settings requires explicit cognitive storage and processing capacity. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 18, 553–566.Google Scholar
Fortunato, S., Forli, F., Guglielmi, V., De Corso, E., Paludetti, G., Berrettini, S., & Fetoni, A. R. (2016). A review of new insights on the association between hearing loss and cognitive decline in ageing. Acta Otorhinolaryngologica Italica, 36, 155–166.Google Scholar
Füllgrabe, C., & Rosen, S. (2016). On the (un)importance of working memory in speech-in-noise processing for listeners with normal hearing thresholds. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1268.Google Scholar
Gathercole, S. E. (2006). Nonword repetition and word learning: The nature of the relationship. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27(4), 513–543.Google Scholar
Gray, S., Lancaster, H., Alt, M., Hogan, T. P., Green, S., Levy, R., & Cowan, N. (2020). The structure of word learning in young school-age children. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 63(5), 1446–1466.Google Scholar
Grosjean, F. (1980). Spoken word recognition processes and gating paradigm. Perception & Psychophysics, 28, 267–283.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hagerman, B. (1982). Sentences for testing speech intelligibility in noise. Scandinavian Audiology, 11, 79–87.Google Scholar
Hällgren, M., Larsby, B., & Arlinger, S. (2006). A Swedish version of the hearing in noise test (HINT) for measurement of speech recognition. International Journal of Audiology, 45, 227–237.Google Scholar
Han, M. K., Storkel, H. L., Lee, J., & Cox, C. (2016). The effects of phonotactic probability and neighborhood density on adults’ word learning in noisy conditions. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 25, 547–560.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hewitt, D. (2017). Age-related hearing loss and cognitive decline: You haven’t heard the half of it. Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience, 9, 112.Google Scholar
Hickok, G., & Poeppel, D. (2007). The cortical organization of speech processing. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 8, 393–402.Google Scholar
Holmer, E., Heimann, M., & Rudner, M. (2016). Imitation, sign language skill and the developmental Ease of Language Understanding (D-ELU) Model. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 107.Google Scholar
Holmer, E., & Rudner, M. (2020). Developmental Ease of Language Understanding mode and literacy acquisition: Evidence from deaf and hard-of-hearing signing children. In Wang, Q. Y. & Andrews, J. F. (Eds.), Multiple paths to become literate: International perspective in deaf education. Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
Holmer, E., & Witte, E. (unpublished manuscript). Phonotactic probability and phonological neighborhood density interact in word learning in Swedish schoolchildren.Google Scholar
Hoover, J. R., Storkel, H. L., & Hogan, T. P. (2010). A cross-sectional comparison of the effects of phonotactic probability and neighborhood density on word learning by preschool children. Journal of Memory and Language, 63(1), 100–116.Google Scholar
Hua, H., Johansson, B., Lyxell, B., Magnusson, L., & Ellis, R. J. (2017). Speech recognition and cognitive skills in bimodal cochlear implant users. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 60(9), 1–12.Google Scholar
Humes, L. E., Busey, T. A., Craig, J., & Kewley-Port, D. (2013). Are age-related changes in cognitive function driven by age-related changes in sensory processing? Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 75, 508–524.Google Scholar
Kennedy-Higgins, D., Devlin, J. T., & Adank, P. (2020). Cognitive mechanisms underpinning successful perception of different speech distortions. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 147(4), 2728–2740.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kilman, L., Zekveld, A., Hällgren, M., & Rönnberg, J. (2014). The influence of non-native language proficiency on speech perception performance. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 651.Google Scholar
Kilman, L., Zekveld, A., Hällgren, M., & Rönnberg, J. (2015). Native and non-native speech perception by hearing-impaired listeners in noise- and speech maskers. Trends in Hearing, 19.Google Scholar
Kraus, N., & White-Schwoch, T. (2015). Unraveling the biology of auditory learning: A cognitive sensorimotor- reward framework. Trends in Cognitive Science, 19, 642–654.Google Scholar
Lin, F. (2011). Hearing loss and cognition among older adults in the United States. The Journals of Gerontology: Series A, 66A(10), 1131–1136.Google Scholar
Lin, F. R., Ferrucci, L., An, Y., Goh, J. O., Doshi, J., Metter, E. J., (… ) Resnick, S. M. (2014). Association of hearing impairment with brain volume changes in older adults. NeuroImage, 90, 84–92.Google Scholar
Lin, F. R., Metter, E. J., O’Brien, R. J., Resnick, S. M., Zonderman, A. B., & Ferrucci, L. (2011). Hearing loss and incident dementia. Archives of Neurology, 68(2), 214–220.Google Scholar
Livingston, G., Sommerlad, A., Orgeta, V., Costafreda, S. G., Huntley, J., Ames, D.,…Mukadam, N. (2017). Dementia prevention, intervention, and care. Lancet, 390, 2673–734.Google Scholar
Luce, P. A., & Pisoni, D. B. (1998). Recognizing spoken words: The neighborhood activation model. Ear and Hearing, 19(1), 1–36.Google Scholar
Lunner, T. (2003). Cognitive function in relation to hearing aid use. International Journal of Audiology, 42(Suppl 1), 49–58.Google Scholar
Lunner, T., Rudner, M., & Rönnberg, J. (2009). Cognition and hearing aids. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 50(5), 395–403.Google Scholar
Lunner, T., & Sundewall-Thorén, E. (2007). Interactions between cognition, compression, and listening conditions: Effects on speech-in-noise performance in a 2-channel hearing aid. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 18(7), 604–617.Google Scholar
McGurk, H., & MacDonald, J. (1976). Hearing lips and seeing voices. Nature, 264(5588), 746–748.Google Scholar
Marsh, J. E., & Campbell, T. A. (2016). Processing complex sounds passing through the rostral brain stem: The New Early Filter Model. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 10, 136.Google Scholar
MacSweeney, M., Capek, C. M., Campbell, R., & Woll, B. (2008). The signing brain: The neurobiology of sign language. Trends in Cognitive Science, 12, 432–440.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mattys, S. L., Davis, M. H., Bradlow, A. R., & Scott, S. (2012). Speech recognition in adverse conditions: A review. Language and Cognitive Processes, 27(7–8), 953–978.Google Scholar
Moradi, S., Lidestam, B., Ng, E. H. N., Danielsson, H., & Rönnberg, J. (2017). Visual cues contribute differentially in audiovisual perception of consonants and vowels in improving recognition and reducing cognitive demands. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 60, 2687–2703.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moradi, S., Lidestam, B., & Rönnberg, J. (2013). Gated audiovisual speech identification in silence vs. noise: Effects on time and accuracy. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 359.Google Scholar
Moradi, S., Lidestam, B., Saremi, A., & Rönnberg, J. (2014). Gated auditory speech perception: Effects of listening conditions and cognitive capacity. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 531.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Näätänen, R., & Escera, C. (2000). Mismatch negativity: Clinical and other applications. Audiology and Neurootology, 5, 105–110.Google Scholar
Ng, E. H. N., & Rönnberg, J. (2020). Hearing aid experience and background noise affect the robust relationship between working memory and speech recognition in noise. International Journal of Audiology, 59(3), 208–218.Google Scholar
Ng, E. H. N., Rudner, M., Lunner, T., Pedersen, M. S., & Rönnberg, J. (2013). Effects of noise and working memory capacity on memory processing of speech for hearing-aid users. International Journal of Audiology, 52(7), 433–441.Google Scholar
Ng, E. H. N., Rudner, M., Lunner, T., & Rönnberg, J. (2015). Noise reduction improves memory for target language speech in competing native but not foreign language speech. Ear and Hearing, 36(1), 82–91.Google Scholar
Peelle, J. E., Troiani, V., Grossman, M., & Wingfield, A. (2011). Hearing loss in older adults affects neural systems supporting speech comprehension. Journal of Neuroscience, 31,12638–12643.Google Scholar
Peelle, J. E., & Wingfield, A. (2016). The neural consequences of age-related hearing loss. Trends in Neuroscience, 39(7), 486–497.Google Scholar
Poeppel, D., Idsardi, W. J., & van Wassenhove, V. (2008). Speech perception at the interface of neurobiology and linguistics. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 363, 1071–1086.Google Scholar
Roberts, K. L., & Allen, H. A. (2016). Perception and cognition in the ageing brain: A brief review of the short- and long-term links between perceptual and cognitive decline. Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience, 8, 39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rudner, M., Foo, C., Rönnberg, J., & Lunner, T. (2009). Cognition and aided speech recognition in noise: Specific role for cognitive factors following nine-week experience with adjusted compression settings in hearing aids. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 50(5), 405–418.Google Scholar
Rudner, M., Foo, C., Sundewall Thorén, E., Lunner, T., & Rönnberg, J. (2008). Phonological mismatch and explicit cognitive processing in a sample of 102 hearing aid users. International Journal of Audiology, 47 (Suppl. 2), S163–S170.Google Scholar
Rudner, M., Fransson, P., Ingvar, M., Nyberg, L. & Rönnberg, J. (2007). Neural representation of binding lexical signs and words in the episodic buffer of working memory. Neuropsychologia, 45(10), 2258–2276.Google Scholar
Rudner, M., Seeto, M., Keidser, G., Johnson, B., & Rönnberg, J. (2019). Poorer speech reception threshold in noise is associated with reduced brain volume in auditory and cognitive processing regions. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 62(4S), 1117–1130.Google Scholar
Rönnberg, J. (2003). Cognition in the hearing impaired and deaf as a bridge between signal and dialogue: A framework and a model. International Journal of Audiology, 42 (Suppl. 1), S68–S76.Google Scholar
Rönnberg, J. Arlinger, S., Lyxell, B., & Kinnefors, C. (1989). Visual evoked potentials: Relation to adult speechreading and cognitive function. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 32(4), 725–735.Google Scholar
Rönnberg, J., Danielsson, H., Rudner, M., Arlinger, S., Sternäng, O., Wahlin, Å., & Nilsson, , L-G. (2011). Hearing loss is negatively related to episodic and semantic long-term memory but not to short-term memory. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 54, 705–726.Google Scholar
Rönnberg, J., Holmer, E., & Rudner, M. (2019). Cognitive hearing science and ease of language understanding. International Journal of Audiology, 58(5), 247–261.Google Scholar
Rönnberg, J., Holmer, E., & Rudner, M. (2021). Cognitive hearing science: Three memory systems, two approaches, and the ease of language understanding model. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 64(2), 359–370.Google Scholar
Rönnberg, J., Hygge, S., Keidser, G., & Rudner, M. (2014). The effect of functional hearing loss and age on long- and short-term visuospatial memory: Evidence from the UK Biobank Resource. Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience, 6, 326.Google Scholar
Rönnberg, J., Lunner, T., Ng, E. H. N., Lidestam, B., Zekveld, A. A., Sörqvist, P., ( … ) Stenfelt, S. (2016). Hearing impairment, cognition and speech understanding: Exploratory factor analyses of a comprehensive test battery for a group of hearing aid users, the n200 Study. International Journal of Audiology, 55(11), 623–642.Google Scholar
Rönnberg, J., Lunner, T., Zekveld, A. A., Sörqvist, P., Danielsson, H., Lyxell, B., (…) Rudner, M. (2013). The Ease of Language Understanding (ELU) model: Theoretical, empirical, and clinical advances. Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience, 7, 31.Google Scholar
Rönnberg, J., Rudner, M., Foo, C., & Lunner, T. (2008). Cognition counts: A working memory system for Ease of Language Understanding (ELU). International Journal of Audiology, 47 (Suppl 2), S99–S105.Google Scholar
Rönnberg, J., Rudner, M. & Ingvar, M. (2004). Neural correlates of working memory for sign language. Cognitive Brain Research, 20, 165–182.Google Scholar
Schneider, B. A., Daneman, M., & Pichora-Fuller, M. K. (2002). Listening in aging adults: From discourse comprehension to psychoacoustics. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 56, 139–152.Google Scholar
Signoret, C., Andersen, L. M., Dahlström, Ö., Blomberg, R, Lundqvist, D., Rudner, M., & Rönnberg, J. (2020) The influence of form- and meaning-based predictions on cortical speech processing under challenging listening conditions: A MEG Study. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 14, 573254Google Scholar
Signoret, C., Johnsrude, I., Classon, E., & Rudner, M. (2018). Combined effects of form- and meaning-based predictability on perceived clarity of speech. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Performance and Perception, 44(2), 277–285.Google Scholar
Signoret, C., & Rudner, M. (2019). Hearing impairment and perceived clarity of predictable speech. Ear and Hearing, 40 (5), 1140–1148.Google Scholar
Sommers, M. S. (1996). The structural organization of the mental lexicon and its contribution to age-related declines in spoken-word recognition. Psychology and Aging, 11, 333–341.Google Scholar
Souza, P., Arehart, K. H., Shen, J., Anderson, M., & Kates, J. M. (2015). Working memory and intelligibility of hearing-aid processed speech. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 526.Google Scholar
Souza, P., Arehart, K., Schoof, T., Anderson, M., Strori, D., & Balmert, L. (2019). Understanding variability in individual response to hearing aid signal processing in wearable hearing aids. Ear and Hearing, 40(6), 1280–1292.Google Scholar
Souza, P., & Sirow, L. (2014). Relating working memory to compression parameters in clinically fit hearing aids. American Journal of Audiology, 23(4), 394–401.Google Scholar
Stamate, A., Logie, R. H., Baddeley, A. D., & Sala, S. D. (2020). Forgetting in Alzheimer’s disease: Is it fast? Is it affected by repeated retrieval? Neuropsychologia, 138, 107351.Google Scholar
Sörqvist, P., Dahlström, Ö., Karlsson, T., & Rönnberg, T. J. (2016). Concentration: The neural underpinnings of how cognitive load shields against distraction. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 10, 221.Google Scholar
Sörqvist, P., & Rönnberg, 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.Google Scholar
Sörqvist, P., Stenfelt, S., & Rönnberg, J. (2012). Working memory capacity and visual-verbal cognitive load modulate auditory-sensory gating in the brainstem: Toward a unified view of attention. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 24(11), 2147–2154.Google Scholar
Verhaegen, C., Collette, F., & Majerus, S. (2014). The impact of aging and hearing status on verbal short-term memory: Neuropsychology, development, and cognition. B Aging Neuropsychology and Cognition, 21, 464–482.Google Scholar
Wayne, R. V., & Johnsrude, I. S. (2015). A review of causal mechanisms underlying the link between age-related hearing loss and cognitive decline. Ageing Research Reviews, 23(Pt B), 154–166.Google Scholar
Wild, C. J., Yusuf, A., Wilson, E., Peelle, J. P., Davis, M. H., & Johnsrude, I. S. (2012). Effortful Listening: The processing of degraded speech depends critically on attention. Journal of Neuroscience, 32(40), 14010–14021.Google Scholar
Zekveld, A. A., Rudner, M., Johnsrude, I. S., Festen, J. M., van Beek, J. H. M., & Rönnberg, J. (2011). The influence of semantically related and unrelated text cues on the intelligibility of sentences in noise. Ear and Hearing, 32(6), e16–e25.Google Scholar
Zekveld, A. A., Rudner, M., Johnsrude, I. S., & Rönnberg, J. (2013). The effects of working memory capacity and semantic cues on the intelligibility of speech in noise. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 134(3), 2225–2234.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×