Literature DB >> 25654299

The Impact of Auditory Spectral Resolution on Listening Effort Revealed by Pupil Dilation.

Matthew B Winn1, Jan R Edwards, Ruth Y Litovsky.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: This study measured the impact of auditory spectral resolution on listening effort. Systematic degradation in spectral resolution was hypothesized to elicit corresponding systematic increases in pupil dilation, consistent with the notion of pupil dilation as a marker of cognitive load.
DESIGN: Spectral resolution of sentences was varied with two different vocoders: (1) a noise-channel vocoder with a variable number of spectral channels; and (2) a vocoder designed to simulate front-end processing of a cochlear implant, including peak-picking channel selection with variable synthesis filter slopes to simulate spread of neural excitation. Pupil dilation was measured after subject-specific luminance adjustment and trial-specific baseline measures. Mixed-effects growth curve analysis was used to model pupillary responses over time.
RESULTS: For both types of vocoder, pupil dilation grew with each successive degradation in spectral resolution. Within each condition, pupillary responses were not related to intelligibility scores, and the effect of spectral resolution on pupil dilation persisted even when only analyzing trials in which responses were 100% correct.
CONCLUSIONS: Intelligibility scores alone were not sufficient to quantify the effort required to understand speech with poor resolution. Degraded spectral resolution results in increased effort required to understand speech, even when intelligibility is at 100%. Pupillary responses were a sensitive and highly granular measurement to reveal changes in listening effort. Pupillary responses might potentially reveal the benefits of aural prostheses that are not captured by speech intelligibility performance alone as well as the disadvantages that are overcome by increased listening effort.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25654299      PMCID: PMC4478109          DOI: 10.1097/AUD.0000000000000145

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ear Hear        ISSN: 0196-0202            Impact factor:   3.570


  78 in total

1.  Spectral peak resolution and speech recognition in quiet: normal hearing, hearing impaired, and cochlear implant listeners.

Authors:  Belinda A Henry; Christopher W Turner; Amy Behrens
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2005-08       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  Relative contributions of spectral and temporal cues for phoneme recognition.

Authors:  Li Xu; Catherine S Thompson; Bryan E Pfingst
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2005-05       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  Spectral-ripple resolution correlates with speech reception in noise in cochlear implant users.

Authors:  Jong Ho Won; Ward R Drennan; Jay T Rubinstein
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2007-06-21

4.  Electrode ranking of "place pitch" and speech recognition in electrical hearing.

Authors:  D A Nelson; D J Van Tasell; A C Schroder; S Soli; S Levine
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1995-10       Impact factor: 1.840

5.  Listening effort with cochlear implant simulations.

Authors:  Carina Pals; Anastasios Sarampalis; Deniz Baskent
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2012-12-28       Impact factor: 2.297

6.  Speech recognition with primarily temporal cues.

Authors:  R V Shannon; F G Zeng; V Kamath; J Wygonski; M Ekelid
Journal:  Science       Date:  1995-10-13       Impact factor: 47.728

7.  Occupational performance: comparing normally-hearing and hearing-impaired employees using the Amsterdam Checklist for Hearing and Work.

Authors:  Sophia E Kramer; Theo S Kapteyn; Tammo Houtgast
Journal:  Int J Audiol       Date:  2006-09       Impact factor: 2.117

8.  Patterns of neural degeneration in the human cochlea and auditory nerve: implications for cochlear implantation.

Authors:  J B Nadol
Journal:  Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  1997-09       Impact factor: 3.497

9.  Psychosocial work environment, hearing impairment and health.

Authors:  Berth Danermark; Lotta Coniavitis Gellerstedt
Journal:  Int J Audiol       Date:  2004 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 2.117

10.  Statistical and computational models of the visual world paradigm: Growth curves and individual differences.

Authors:  Daniel Mirman; James A Dixon; James S Magnuson
Journal:  J Mem Lang       Date:  2008-11       Impact factor: 3.059

View more
  76 in total

1.  Psychometric Functions of Dual-Task Paradigms for Measuring Listening Effort.

Authors:  Yu-Hsiang Wu; Elizabeth Stangl; Xuyang Zhang; Joanna Perkins; Emily Eilers
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2016 Nov/Dec       Impact factor: 3.570

2.  Physiological regulation and social-emotional processing in female carriers of the FMR1 premutation.

Authors:  Molly Winston; Kritika Nayar; Abigail L Hogan; Jamie Barstein; Chelsea La Valle; Kevin Sharp; Elizabeth Berry-Kravis; Molly Losh
Journal:  Physiol Behav       Date:  2019-11-22

3.  Listening and Learning: Cognitive Contributions to the Rehabilitation of Older Adults With and Without Audiometrically Defined Hearing Loss.

Authors:  Kelly L Tremblay; Kristina C Backer
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2016 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 3.570

4.  Pupillometry shows the effort of auditory attention switching.

Authors:  Daniel R McCloy; Bonnie K Lau; Eric Larson; Katherine A I Pratt; Adrian K C Lee
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2017-04       Impact factor: 1.840

5.  Low-frequency fine-structure cues allow for the online use of lexical stress during spoken-word recognition in spectrally degraded speech.

Authors:  Ying-Yee Kong; Alexandra Jesse
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2017-01       Impact factor: 1.840

6.  Temporal alignment of pupillary response with stimulus events via deconvolution.

Authors:  Daniel R McCloy; Eric D Larson; Bonnie Lau; Adrian K C Lee
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2016-03       Impact factor: 1.840

7.  Extrinsic Cognitive Load Impairs Spoken Word Recognition in High- and Low-Predictability Sentences.

Authors:  Cynthia R Hunter; David B Pisoni
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2018 Mar/Apr       Impact factor: 3.570

8.  Lexical bias in word recognition by cochlear implant listeners.

Authors:  Steven P Gianakas; Matthew B Winn
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2019-11       Impact factor: 1.840

9.  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

Review 10.  Neurocognitive factors in sensory restoration of early deafness: a connectome model.

Authors:  Andrej Kral; William G Kronenberger; David B Pisoni; Gerard M O'Donoghue
Journal:  Lancet Neurol       Date:  2016-03-12       Impact factor: 44.182

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.