Literature DB >> 28622894

Impact of stimulus-related factors and hearing impairment on listening effort as indicated by pupil dilation.

Barbara Ohlenforst1, Adriana A Zekveld2, Thomas Lunner3, Dorothea Wendt4, Graham Naylor5, Yang Wang6, Niek J Versfeld7, Sophia E Kramer7.   

Abstract

Previous research has reported effects of masker type and signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) on listening effort, as indicated by the peak pupil dilation (PPD) relative to baseline during speech recognition. At about 50% correct sentence recognition performance, increasing SNRs generally results in declining PPDs, indicating reduced effort. However, the decline in PPD over SNRs has been observed to be less pronounced for hearing-impaired (HI) compared to normal-hearing (NH) listeners. The presence of a competing talker during speech recognition generally resulted in larger PPDs as compared to the presence of a fluctuating or stationary background noise. The aim of the present study was to examine the interplay between hearing-status, a broad range of SNRs corresponding to sentence recognition performance varying from 0 to 100% correct, and different masker types (stationary noise and single-talker masker) on the PPD during speech perception. Twenty-five HI and 32 age-matched NH participants listened to sentences across a broad range of SNRs, masked with speech from a single talker (-25 dB to +15 dB SNR) or with stationary noise (-12 dB to +16 dB). Correct sentence recognition scores and pupil responses were recorded during stimulus presentation. With a stationary masker, NH listeners show maximum PPD across a relatively narrow range of low SNRs, while HI listeners show relatively large PPD across a wide range of ecological SNRs. With the single-talker masker, maximum PPD was observed in the mid-range of SNRs around 50% correct sentence recognition performance, while smaller PPDs were observed at lower and higher SNRs. Mixed-model ANOVAs revealed significant interactions between hearing-status and SNR on the PPD for both masker types. Our data show a different pattern of PPDs across SNRs between groups, which indicates that listening and the allocation of effort during listening in daily life environments may be different for NH and HI listeners.
Copyright © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Hearing impairment; Listening effort; Pupil dilation; Signal-to-noise ratio; Speech recognition

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28622894     DOI: 10.1016/j.heares.2017.05.012

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Hear Res        ISSN: 0378-5955            Impact factor:   3.208


  28 in total

1.  Older adults show impaired modulation of attentional alpha oscillations: Evidence from dichotic listening.

Authors:  Chad S Rogers; Lisa Payne; Sujala Maharjan; Arthur Wingfield; Robert Sekuler
Journal:  Psychol Aging       Date:  2018-03

2.  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

Review 3.  Eyes and ears: Using eye tracking and pupillometry to understand challenges to speech recognition.

Authors:  Kristin J Van Engen; Drew J McLaughlin
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2018-05-04       Impact factor: 3.208

4.  Adults with cochlear implants can use prosody to determine the clausal structure of spoken sentences.

Authors:  Nicole M Amichetti; Jonathan Neukam; Alexander J Kinney; Nicole Capach; Samantha U March; Mario A Svirsky; Arthur Wingfield
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2021-12       Impact factor: 1.840

5.  Cognitive and Physiological Measures of Listening Effort During Degraded Speech Perception: Relating Dual-Task and Pupillometry Paradigms.

Authors:  Sarah Colby; Bob McMurray
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2021-09-07       Impact factor: 2.674

6.  Dichotic listening performance and effort as a function of spectral resolution and interaural symmetry.

Authors:  Kristina DeRoy Milvae; Stefanie E Kuchinsky; Olga A Stakhovskaya; Matthew J Goupell
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2021-08       Impact factor: 2.482

7.  Comparing methods of analysis in pupillometry: application to the assessment of listening effort in hearing-impaired patients.

Authors:  Lou Seropian; Mathieu Ferschneider; Fanny Cholvy; Christophe Micheyl; Aurélie Bidet-Caulet; Annie Moulin
Journal:  Heliyon       Date:  2022-06-03

8.  Effect of Speech-to-Noise Ratio and Luminance on a Range of Current and Potential Pupil Response Measures to Assess Listening Effort.

Authors:  Patrycja Książek; Adriana A Zekveld; Dorothea Wendt; Lorenz Fiedler; Thomas Lunner; Sophia E Kramer
Journal:  Trends Hear       Date:  2021 Jan-Dec       Impact factor: 3.293

9.  Neurofeedback Training of Auditory Selective Attention Enhances Speech-In-Noise Perception.

Authors:  Subong Kim; Caroline Emory; Inyong Choi
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2021-06-22       Impact factor: 3.169

10.  Comparisons of the Sensitivity and Reliability of Multiple Measures of Listening Effort.

Authors:  Nicholas P Giuliani; Carolyn J Brown; Yu-Hsiang Wu
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2021 Mar/Apr       Impact factor: 3.562

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.