Literature DB >> 29858121

Toward a more comprehensive understanding of the impact of masker type and signal-to-noise ratio on the pupillary response while performing a speech-in-noise test.

Dorothea Wendt1, Thomas Koelewijn2, Patrycja Książek3, Sophia E Kramer2, Thomas Lunner4.   

Abstract

Difficulties arising in everyday speech communication often result from the acoustical environment, which may contain interfering background noise or competing speakers. Thus, listening and understanding speech in noise can be exhausting. Two experiments are presented in the current study that further explored the impact of masker type and Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR) on listening effort by means of pupillometry. In both studies, pupillary responses of participants were measured while performing the Danish Hearing in Noise Test (HINT; Nielsen and Dau, 2011). The first experiment aimed to replicate and extend earlier observed effects of noise type and semantic interference on listening effort (Koelewijn et al., 2012). The impact of three different masker types, i.e. a fluctuating noise, a 1-talker masker and a 4-talker masker on listening effort was examined at a fixed speech intelligibility. In a second experiment, effects of SNR on listening effort were examined while presenting the HINT sentences across a broad range of fixed SNRs corresponding to intelligibility scores ranging from 100% to 0% correct performance. A peak pupil dilation (PPD) was calculated and a Growth Curve Analysis (GCA) was performed to examine listening effort involved in speech recognition as a function of SNR. The results of two experiments showed that the pupil dilation response is highly affected by both masker type and SNR when performing the HINT. The PPD was highest, suggesting the highest level of effort, for speech recognition in the presence of the 1-talker masker in comparison to the 4-talker babble and the fluctuating noise masker. However, the disrupting effect of one competing talker disappeared for intelligibly levels around 50%. Furthermore, it was demonstrated that the pupillary response strongly varied as a function of SNRs. Listening effort was highest for intermediate SNRs with performance accuracies ranging between 30% and 70% correct. GCA revealed time-dependent effects of the SNR on the pupillary response that were not reflected in the PPD.
Copyright © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Growth curve analysis; Listening effort; Pupil dilation; Pupillometry; Signal-to-noise ratio; Speech recognition; Speech-in-noise test

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29858121     DOI: 10.1016/j.heares.2018.05.006

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


  15 in total

1.  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

2.  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

Review 3.  Hearing and speech processing in midlife.

Authors:  Karen S Helfer; Alexandra Jesse
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2020-10-17       Impact factor: 3.208

4.  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

Review 5.  Best Practices and Advice for Using Pupillometry to Measure Listening Effort: An Introduction for Those Who Want to Get Started.

Authors:  Matthew B Winn; Dorothea Wendt; Thomas Koelewijn; Stefanie E Kuchinsky
Journal:  Trends Hear       Date:  2018 Jan-Dec       Impact factor: 3.293

6.  Noise, Age, and Gender Effects on Speech Intelligibility and Sentence Comprehension for 11- to 13-Year-Old Children in Real Classrooms.

Authors:  Nicola Prodi; Chiara Visentin; Erika Borella; Irene C Mammarella; Alberto Di Domenico
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2019-09-25

7.  Pupil Responses of Adults With Traumatic Brain Injury During Processing of Speech in Noise.

Authors:  Thomas Koelewijn; José A P van Haastrecht; Sophia E Kramer
Journal:  Trends Hear       Date:  2018 Jan-Dec       Impact factor: 3.293

8.  Measuring the Impact of Tinnitus on Aided Listening Effort Using Pupillary Response.

Authors:  Josefine Juul Jensen; Susanna L Callaway; Thomas Lunner; Dorothea Wendt
Journal:  Trends Hear       Date:  2018 Jan-Dec       Impact factor: 3.293

9.  Pupil Dilation Is Sensitive to Semantic Ambiguity and Acoustic Degradation.

Authors:  Mason Kadem; Björn Herrmann; Jennifer M Rodd; Ingrid S Johnsrude
Journal:  Trends Hear       Date:  2020 Jan-Dec       Impact factor: 3.293

10.  Three New Outcome Measures That Tap Into Cognitive Processes Required for Real-Life Communication.

Authors:  Thomas Lunner; Emina Alickovic; Carina Graversen; Elaine Hoi Ning Ng; Dorothea Wendt; Gitte Keidser
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2020 Nov/Dec       Impact factor: 3.562

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.