Literature DB >> 30124111

Verbal Response Times as a Potential Indicator of Cognitive Load During Conventional Speech Audiometry With Matrix Sentences.

Hartmut Meister1, Sebastian Rählmann1, Ulrike Lemke2, Jana Besser2.   

Abstract

This study examined verbal response times-that is, the duration from stimulus offset to voice onset-as a potential measure of cognitive load during conventional testing of speech-in-noise understanding. Response times were compared with a measure of perceived effort as assessed by listening effort scaling. Three listener groups differing in age and hearing status participated in the study. Testing was done at two target intelligibility levels (80%, 95%) and with two noise types (stationary and fluctuating). Verbal response times reflected effects of intelligibility level, noise type, and listener group. Response times were shorter for 95% compared with 80% target intelligibility, shorter for fluctuating compared with stationary noise, and shorter for young listeners compared with older listeners. Responses were also faster for the older listeners with near normal hearing compared with the older hearing-aid users. In contrast, subjective listening effort scaling predominantly revealed effects of target intelligibility level but did not show consistent noise-type or listener-group effects. These findings show that verbal response times and effort scalings tap into different domains of listening effort. Verbal response times can be easily assessed during conventional speech audiometry and have the potential to show effects beyond performance measures and subjective effort estimates.

Entities:  

Keywords:  aging; cognition; hearing aids; listening effort; speech recognition

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30124111      PMCID: PMC6102757          DOI: 10.1177/2331216518793255

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Trends Hear        ISSN: 2331-2165            Impact factor:   3.293


  31 in total

1.  Older adults expend more listening effort than young adults recognizing speech in noise.

Authors:  Penny Anderson Gosselin; Jean-Pierre Gagné
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2010-11-08       Impact factor: 2.297

2.  Validation of a simple response-time measure of listening effort.

Authors:  Carina Pals; Anastasios Sarampalis; Hedderik van Rijn; Deniz Başkent
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2015-09       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  Processing Mechanisms in Hearing-Impaired Listeners: Evidence from Reaction Times and Sentence Interpretation.

Authors:  Rebecca Carroll; Verena Uslar; Thomas Brand; Esther Ruigendijk
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2016 Nov/Dec       Impact factor: 3.570

4.  Relationship between masking release in fluctuating maskers and speech reception thresholds in stationary noise.

Authors:  Claus Christiansen; Torsten Dau
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2012-09       Impact factor: 1.840

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

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

6.  Cognitive Load and Listening Effort: Concepts and Age-Related Considerations.

Authors:  Ulrike Lemke; Jana Besser
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2016 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 3.570

7.  Factors affecting masking release for speech in modulated noise for normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners.

Authors:  Erwin L J George; Joost M Festen; Tammo Houtgast
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2006-10       Impact factor: 1.840

8.  Age-related changes in listening effort for various types of masker noises.

Authors:  Jamie L Desjardins; Karen A Doherty
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2013 May-Jun       Impact factor: 3.570

9.  Listening effort and fatigue: what exactly are we measuring? A British Society of Audiology Cognition in Hearing Special Interest Group 'white paper'.

Authors:  Ronan McGarrigle; Kevin J Munro; Piers Dawes; Andrew J Stewart; David R Moore; Johanna G Barry; Sygal Amitay
Journal:  Int J Audiol       Date:  2014-03-27       Impact factor: 2.117

10.  Seeing the talker's face supports executive processing of speech in steady state noise.

Authors:  Sushmit Mishra; Thomas Lunner; Stefan Stenfelt; Jerker Rönnberg; Mary Rudner
Journal:  Front Syst Neurosci       Date:  2013-11-26
View more
  5 in total

Review 1.  [Speech comprehension and cognitive performance in acoustically difficult situations].

Authors:  H Meister
Journal:  HNO       Date:  2020-03       Impact factor: 1.284

2.  Dual-Task Accuracy and Response Time Index Effects of Spoken Sentence Predictability and Cognitive Load on Listening Effort.

Authors:  Cynthia R Hunter
Journal:  Trends Hear       Date:  2021 Jan-Dec       Impact factor: 3.293

3.  Evidence for cortical adjustments to perceptual decision criteria during word recognition in noise.

Authors:  Kenneth I Vaden; Susan Teubner-Rhodes; Jayne B Ahlstrom; Judy R Dubno; Mark A Eckert
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2022-03-06       Impact factor: 7.400

4.  Validation of the Maltese Adaptive Auditory Speech Test (AAST).

Authors:  Pauline Miggiani; Frans Coninx; Karolin Schaefer
Journal:  Audiol Res       Date:  2022-06-26

5.  Speech Recognition and Listening Effort of Meaningful Sentences Using Synthetic Speech.

Authors:  Saskia Ibelings; Thomas Brand; Inga Holube
Journal:  Trends Hear       Date:  2022 Jan-Dec       Impact factor: 3.496

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.