Use of a dual-task paradigm to measure listening effort

Canadian Journal of Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology

Volumn 34, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 43-51

  Gosselin, Penny Anderson ^a   Gagné, Jean Pierre ^a  

^a UNIVERSITÉ DE MONTRÉAL   (Canada)

Author keywords

Aging; Cognition; Dual task paradigm; Hearing aids; Hearing loss; Listening effort; Rehabilitation; Speech perception

Indexed keywords

EID: 77951156442     PISSN: 1913200X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (67)

1. Akeroyd, M. (2008). Are individual differences in speech reception related to individual differences in cognitive ability? A survey of twenty experimental studies with normal and hearing-impaired adults International Journal of Audiology, 47(Suppl. 2), S53-S71.
2. Baltes, P., &Lindenberger, U. ( 1997). Emergence of a powerful connection between sensory and cognitive functions across the adult life span: A new window to the study of cognitive aging. Psychology of Aging 12, 12-21.
3. Bench, J., Kowal, A., & Bamford, J. (1979). The BKB (Bamford-Kowal-Bench) Sentence Lists for partially-hearing children. British Journal of Audiology, 13, 108-112.
4. Bourland-Hicks, C., &Tharpe, A. M. (2002). Listening effort and fatigue in schoolage children with and without hearing loss. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 45, 573-584.
5. Broadbent, D. (1958). Perception and communication. New York: Pergamon Press.
6. CHABA. (1988). Speech understanding and aging. Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 83, 859-895.
7. Choi, S., Lotto, A., Lewis, D., Hoover, B., & Stelmachowicz, P. (2008). Attentional modulation of word recognition by children in a dual-task paradigm. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 51(August), 1042-1054.
8. Cox, R. (2003). Assessment of subjective outcome of hearing aid fitting: Getting the client's point of view. International Journal of Audiology, 42, S90-S96.
9. Crossley, M., & Hiscock, M. (1992). Age-related differences in concurrent-task performance of normal adults: Evidence for a decline in processing resources. Psychology and Aging 7, 499-506.
10. Demorest, M., & Erdman, S. (1986). Scale composition and item analysis of the communication profile for the hearing impaired. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 29, 515-535.
11. Downs, D. (1982). Effects of hearing aid use on speech discrimination and listening effort. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 47, 189-193.
12. Downs, D., & Crum, M. ( 1978). Processing demands during auditory learning under degraded listening conditions. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 21(702-714).
13. Edwards, B. (2007). The future of hearing aid technology. Trends in Amplification, 11(1), 31-46.
14. Feuerstein, J. (1992). Monaural versus binaural hearing: Ease of listening, word recognition and attentional effort. Ear and Hearing 13(2), 80-86.
15. Fletcher, H. (1953). Speech and hearing in communication: Van Nostrand.
16. Foo, C., Rudner, M., Ronnberg, J., & Lunner, T. (2007). Recognition of speech in noise with new hearing instrument compression release settings requires explicit cognitive storage and processing capacity. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 18(7), 618-631.
17. Ford, A. B., Folomar, S. J., Salmon, R. B., Medalie, J. H., Roy, A. W., & Galazka, S. S. (1988). Health and function in the old and very old. Journal of the American Geriatric Society, 36(3), 187-197.
18. Fraser, S., Gagné, J.-P., Alepins, M., & Dubois, P. (2007). Evaluating the effort expended by younger adults to understand speech: An application of the dual task paradigm. Paper presented at the CIHR Trainee Conference.
19. Fraser,S., Gagné, J.-P., Alepins, M., & Dubois, P. (2009). Evaluating the effort expended to understand speech in noise using a dual-task paradigm: The effects of providing visual speech-cues. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research(in press).
20. Gatehouse, S., & Akeroyd, M. (2006). Two-eared listening in dynamic situations. International Journal of Audiology, 45 (Supplement 1), S120-S124.
21. Gatehouse, S., Naylor, G., & Elberling, C. (2003). Benefits from hearing aids in relation to the interaction between the user and the environment. International Journal of Audiology, 42(Supplement 1), S77-S85.
22. Gatehouse, S., Naylor, G., & Elberling, C. (2006). Linear and non-linear hearing aid fittings - patterns of candidature. International Journal of Audiology, 45, 153-171.
23. Gatehouse, S., & Noble, W. (2004). The Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing Scale (SSQ). International Journal of Audiology, 43, 85-99.
24. Hallgren, M., Larsby, B., Lyxell, B., & Arlinger, S. (2001). Evaluation of a cognitive test battery in young and elderly normal-hearing and hearing-impaired persons. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 12, 357-370.
25. Hallgren, M., Larsby, B., Lyxell, B., & Arlinger, S. (2005). Speech understanding in quiet and noise, with and without hearing aids. International Journal of Audiology, 44, 547-583.
26. Hétu, R., Riverin, L., Lalande, N., Getty, L., & St-Cyr, C. ( 1988). Qualitative analysis of the handicap associated with occupational hearing loss. British Journal of Audiology, 22, 251-264.
27. Hirsh, I. J., Davis, H., Silverman, S. R., Reynolds, E G., Elder, T. E, &Bensen, R. (1952). Development of materials for speech audiometry. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 17, 321-337.
28. Humes, L. (1999). Dimensions of hearing aid outcome. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 10, 26-39.
29. Humes, L, & Humes, L. (2004). Factors affecting long-term hearing aid success. Seminars in Hearing 25(1), 63-72.
30. Kahneman, D. (1973). Attention and effort. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
31. Kiessling, J., Pichora-Fuller, K., Gatehouse, S., Stephens, D., Arlinger, S., Chisolm, T., et al. (2003). Candidature for and delivery of audiological services: special needs of older people. International Journal of Audiology, 42(2), S92-S101.
32. Killion, M. C., Niquette, P. A., Gudmundsen, G. I., Revit, L. J., & Banerjee, S. (2004). Development of a Quick Speech-In-Noise Test for measuring signal-to-noise ratio loss in normal-hearing and hearing impaired listeners. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 116, 2395-2405.
33. Kramer, S., Kapteyn, T., Festen, J., & Kuik, D. ( 1997). Assessing aspects of auditory handicap by means of pupil dilatation. Audiology, 36(3), 155-164.
34. Kricos, P. (2006). Audiologic management of older adults with hearing loss and compromised cognitive/psychoacoustic auditory processing capabilities. Trends in Amplification, 10(1), 1-28.
35. Larsby, B., Hallgren, M., & Lyxell, B. (2005). Cognitive performance and perceived effort in speech processing tasks; Effects of different noise backgrounds in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired subjects. International Journal of Audiology, 44, 131-143.
36. Lavie, N. (1995). Perceptual load as a necessary condition for selective attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 21(3), 451-468.
37. Lavie, N. (2005). Distracted and confused?: Selective attention under load. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9(2), 1-8.
38. Lindenberger, U., & Baltes, P. ( 1994). Sensory functioning and intelligence in old age: A strong connection. Psychology of Aging 9, 339-355.
39. Lunner, T. (2003). Cognitive function in relation to hearing aid use. International Journal of Audiology, 42(Supplement 1), S49-S58.
40. Lunner, T., & Sundewall-Thoren, E. (2007). Interactions between cognition, compression and listening conditions: Effects on speech-in-noise performance in a two-channel hearing aid. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 18(7), 604-617.
41. Nabelek, A. K., Freyaldenhoven, M. C., Tampas, J. W., Burchfield, S. B., & Muenchen, R. A. (2006). Acceptable Noise Level as a predictor of hearing aid use. Jounal of the American Academy of Audiology, 17, 626-639.
42. Nabelek, A. K., Tampas, J. W., & Burchfield, S. B. (2004). Comparison of speech perception in background noise with acceptance of background in aided and unaided conditions. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 47, 1001-1011.
43. Newman, C., Weinstein, B., Jacobson, G., & Hug, G. (1991). Test-retest reliability of the Hearing Handicap Inventory for Adults. Ear and Hearing 12, 355-357.
44. Nilsson, M., Soli, S., & Sullivan, J. (1994). Development of the Hearing in Noise Test for the measurement of speech reception thresholds in quiet and in noise. Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 95, 1085-1099.
45. Pashler, H. ( 1994). Dual-task interference in simple tasks: Data and theory. Psychological Bulletin, 116(2), 220-244.
46. Pichora-Fuller, K., & Singh, G. (2006). Effects of age on auditory and cognitive processing; implications for hearing aid fitting and audiologic rehabilitation. Trends in Amplification, 10(1), 29-59.
47. Plyler, P. (2009). Acceptance of background noise: Recent developments. The Hear-ing journal, 62(4), 10-14.
48. Rabbitt, P. (1966). Recognition: Memory for words correctly heard in noise. Psychonomic Science, 6, 383-384.
49. Rakerd, B., Seitz, P., & Whearty, M. (1996). Assessing the cognitive demands of speech listening for people with hearing losses. Ear and Hearing 17(4), 97-106.
50. Rudner, M., Foo, C., Ronnberg, J., & Lunner,T. (2007). Phonological mismatch makes aided speech recognition in noise cognitively taxing. Ear and Hearing 28(6), 879-972.
51. Sarampalis, A., Kalluri, S., Edwards, B., & Hafer, E (2006). Cognitive effects of noise reduction strategies. Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 119(5), 3239.
52. Sarampalis, A., Kalluri, S., Edwards, B., & Hafer, E (2009). Objective measures of listening effort: Effects of background noise and noise reduction. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research (in press).
53. Saunders, G. H., & Forsline, A. (2006). The Performance-Perceptual Test (PPT) and its relationship to aided reported handicap and hearing aid satisfaction. Ear and Hearing 27(3), 229-242.
54. Scialfa, C. (2002). The role of sensory factors in cognitive aging research. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 56(3), 153-163.
55. Shulman, L. M., Pretzer-Aboff, I., & Anderson, K. E (2006). Subjective report versus objective measurement of activities of daily living in Parkinson's disease. Movement Disorders, 21(6), 794-799.
56. Somberg, B. L., & Salthouse, T. A. (1982). Divided attention abilities in young and old adults. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance, 8, 651-663.
57. Stephens, D., & Hétu, R. (1991). Impairment, disability and handicap in audiology: towards a consensus. Audiology, 30, 185-200.
58. Sweetow, R., & Henderson-Sabes, J. (2004). The case for LACE (Listening and Communication Enhancement). The Hearing Journal, 57(3), 32-38.
59. Taylor, B. (2008). The Acceptable Noise Level Test as a predictor of real-world hearing aid benefit The Hearing Journal, 61(9), 39-42.
60. Tun, P., Benichov, J., & Wingfield, A. (2008). Effortful processing of spoken sentences in younger and older adults: Effects of age and hearing. Paper presented at the Cognitive Aging Conference.
61. Uchida, Y., Nakashima.T., Ando, F., Nino, N., & Shimokata, H. (2003). Prevalence of self-perceived auditory problems and their relation to audiometric thresholds in a middleaged to elderly population. Acta oto-laryngologica, 123(5), 618-626.
62. Weinstein, B., Spitzer, J. B., & Ventry, I. M. ( 1986). Test-retest reliability of the Hearing Handicap Inventory of the Elderly. Ear and Hearing 5, 295-299.
63. WHO. ( 1980). International classification of impairments, disabilities and handicaps. Geneva: World Health Organization.
64. WHO. (2001). ICF: International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. Geneva: WHO.
65. Wickens, C. D. ( 1984). Processing resources in attention. In R. Parasuraman & D. R. Davies (Eds.), Varieties of attention (pp. 63-102). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
66. Wilson, R. H., & Burks, C. A. (2005). The use of 35 words to evaluate hearing loss in terms of signal-to-babble ratio: A clinic protocol. Journal of Rehabilitative Research and Development, 42, 839-852.
67. Worrall, L E., & Hickson, L M. (2003). Communication disability in aging from prevention to intervention. New York: Thomson, Delmar Learning.