Literature DB >> 21463566

Subjective and psychophysiological indexes of listening effort in a competing-talker task.

Carol L Mackersie1, Heather Cones.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The effects of noise and other competing backgrounds on speech recognition performance are well documented. There is less information, however, on listening effort and stress experienced by listeners during a speech-recognition task that requires inhibition of competing sounds.
PURPOSE: The purpose was (a) to determine if psychophysiological indexes of listening effort were more sensitive than performance measures (percentage correct) obtained near ceiling level during a competing speech task, (b) to determine the relative sensitivity of four psychophysiological measures to changes in task demand, and (c) to determine the relationships between changes in psychophysiological measures and changes in subjective ratings of stress and workload. RESEARCH
DESIGN: A repeated-measures experimental design was used to examine changes in performance, psychophysiological measures, and subjective ratings in response to increasing task demand. STUDY SAMPLE: Fifteen adults with normal hearing participated in the study. The mean age of the participants was 27 (range: 24-54). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Psychophysiological recordings of heart rate, skin conductance, skin temperature, and electromyographic (EMG) activity were obtained during listening tasks of varying demand. Materials from the Dichotic Digits Test were used to modulate task demand. The three levels of task demand were single digits presented to one ear (low-demand reference condition), single digits presented simultaneously to both ears (medium demand), and a series of two digits presented simultaneously to both ears (high demand). Participants were asked to repeat all the digits they heard, while psychophysiological activity was recorded simultaneously. Subjective ratings of task load were obtained after each condition using the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Task Load Index questionnaire. Repeated-measures analyses of variance were completed for each measure using task demand and session as factors.
RESULTS: Mean performance was higher than 96% for all listening tasks. There was no significant change in performance across listening conditions for any listener. There was, however, a significant increase in mean skin conductance and EMG activity as task demand increased. Heart rate and skin temperature did not change significantly. There was no strong association between subjective and psychophysiological measures, but all participants with mean normalized effort ratings of greater than 4.5 (i.e., effort increased by a factor of at least 4.5) showed significant changes in skin conductance.
CONCLUSIONS: Even in the absence of substantial performance changes, listeners may experience changes in subjective and psychophysiological responses consistent with the activation of a stress response. Skin conductance appears to be the most promising measure for evaluating individual changes in psychophysiological responses during listening tasks. American Academy of Audiology.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21463566      PMCID: PMC3072569          DOI: 10.3766/jaaa.22.2.6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol        ISSN: 1050-0545            Impact factor:   1.664


  37 in total

Review 1.  Spectral analysis of heart rate and psychological state: a review of its validity as a workload index.

Authors:  P G Jorna
Journal:  Biol Psychol       Date:  1992-11       Impact factor: 3.251

2.  Does the heart know what the ears hear? A heart rate analysis of auditory selective attention.

Authors:  M W van der Molen; R J Somsen; J R Jennings
Journal:  Psychophysiology       Date:  1996-09       Impact factor: 4.016

3.  Physiological workload reactions to increasing levels of task difficulty.

Authors:  J A Veltman; A W Gaillard
Journal:  Ergonomics       Date:  1998-05       Impact factor: 2.778

4.  Electrophysiological, behavioral, and subjective indexes of workload when performing multiple tasks: manipulations of task difficulty and training.

Authors:  L R Fournier; G F Wilson; C R Swain
Journal:  Int J Psychophysiol       Date:  1999-01       Impact factor: 2.997

Review 5.  Heart rate variability: origins, methods, and interpretive caveats.

Authors:  G G Berntson; J T Bigger; D L Eckberg; P Grossman; P G Kaufmann; M Malik; H N Nagaraja; S W Porges; J P Saul; P H Stone; M W van der Molen
Journal:  Psychophysiology       Date:  1997-11       Impact factor: 4.016

6.  Response times to speech stimuli as measures of benefit from amplification.

Authors:  S Gatehouse; J Gordon
Journal:  Br J Audiol       Date:  1990-02

7.  Assessing aspects of auditory handicap by means of pupil dilatation.

Authors:  S E Kramer; T S Kapteyn; J M Festen; D J Kuik
Journal:  Audiology       Date:  1997 May-Jun

8.  Metabolic and cardiorespiratory measures of mental effort: the effects of level of difficulty in a working memory task.

Authors:  R W Backs; K A Seljos
Journal:  Int J Psychophysiol       Date:  1994-02       Impact factor: 2.997

9.  Monaural versus binaural hearing: ease of listening, word recognition, and attentional effort.

Authors:  J F Feuerstein
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  1992-04       Impact factor: 3.570

10.  Spectral contrast enhancement of speech in noise for listeners with sensorineural hearing impairment: effects on intelligibility, quality, and response times.

Authors:  T Baer; B C Moore; S Gatehouse
Journal:  J Rehabil Res Dev       Date:  1993
View more
  34 in total

1.  Perceived listening effort for a tonal task with contralateral competing signals.

Authors:  William J Bologna; Monita Chatterjee; Judy R Dubno
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2013-10       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  Spatial separation benefit for unaided and aided listening.

Authors:  Jayne B Ahlstrom; Amy R Horwitz; Judy R Dubno
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2014 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 3.570

3.  Adaptation to novel foreign-accented speech and retention of benefit following training: Influence of aging and hearing loss.

Authors:  Rebecca E Bieber; Sandra Gordon-Salant
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2017-04       Impact factor: 1.840

4.  Benefit of binaural listening as revealed by speech intelligibility and listening effort.

Authors:  Jan Rennies; Gerald Kidd
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2018-10       Impact factor: 1.840

5.  Self-Assessed Hearing Handicap in Older Adults With Poorer-Than-Predicted Speech Recognition in Noise.

Authors:  Mark A Eckert; Lois J Matthews; Judy R Dubno
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2017-01-01       Impact factor: 2.297

6.  The Effects of Meaning-Based Auditory Training on Behavioral Measures of Perceptual Effort in Individuals with Impaired Hearing.

Authors:  Mitchell S Sommers; Nancy Tye-Murray; Joe Barcroft; Brent P Spehar
Journal:  Semin Hear       Date:  2015-11

7.  Understanding Speech Amid the Jingle and Jangle: Recommendations for Improving Measurement Practices in Listening Effort Research.

Authors:  Julia F Strand; Lucia Ray; Naseem H Dillman-Hasso; Jed Villanueva; Violet A Brown
Journal:  Audit Percept Cogn       Date:  2021-03-23

8.  Listening Effort Measured in Adults with Normal Hearing and Cochlear Implants.

Authors:  Ann E Perreau; Yu-Hsiang Wu; Bailey Tatge; Diana Irwin; Daniel Corts
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  2017-09       Impact factor: 1.664

9.  Cochlear implantation with hearing preservation yields significant benefit for speech recognition in complex listening environments.

Authors:  René H Gifford; Michael F Dorman; Henryk Skarzynski; Artur Lorens; Marek Polak; Colin L W Driscoll; Peter Roland; Craig A Buchman
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2013 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 3.570

10.  Pupil size varies with word listening and response selection difficulty in older adults with hearing loss.

Authors:  Stefanie E Kuchinsky; Jayne B Ahlstrom; Kenneth I Vaden; Stephanie L Cute; Larry E Humes; Judy R Dubno; Mark A Eckert
Journal:  Psychophysiology       Date:  2012-11-15       Impact factor: 4.016

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.