Pupil dilation uncovers extra listening effort in the presence of a single-talker masker

Ear and Hearing

Volumn 33, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 291-300

  Koelewijn, Thomas ^a   Zekveld, Adriana A ^a,b   Festen, Joost M ^a   Kramer, Sophia E ^a  

^a VU UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^b LINKÖPING UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ARTICLE; AUDITORY STIMULATION; AUDITORY THRESHOLD; FEMALE; HEARING; HUMAN; MALE; MENTAL FUNCTION; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; NOISE; PERCEPTION; PHYSIOLOGY; PSYCHOPHYSICS; PUPIL REFLEX; PURE TONE AUDIOMETRY; SPEECH INTELLIGIBILITY; SPEECH PERCEPTION;

ACOUSTIC STIMULATION; ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AUDIOMETRY, PURE-TONE; AUDITORY THRESHOLD; FEMALE; HEARING; HUMANS; MALE; MENTAL PROCESSES; MIDDLE AGED; NOISE; PERCEPTUAL MASKING; PSYCHOACOUSTICS; REFLEX, PUPILLARY; SPEECH INTELLIGIBILITY; SPEECH PERCEPTION; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84857915571     PISSN: 01960202     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/AUD.0b013e3182310019     Document Type: Article

References (57)

1. Ahern, S., & Beatty, J. (1979). Pupillary responses during information-processing vary with scholastic aptitude-test scores. Science, 205, 1289-1292. (Pubitemid 10239860)
2. Akeroyd, M. A. (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. Int J Audiol, 47 Suppl 2, S53-S71.
3. Allen, K., Alais, D., Carlile, S. (2009). Speech intelligibility reduces over distance from an attended location: Evidence for an auditory spatial gradient of attention. Atten Percept Psychophys, 71, 164-173.
4. Beatty, J. (1982). Task-evoked pupillary responses, processing load, and the structure of processing resources. Psychol Bull, 91, 276-292.
5. Binns, C., & Culling, J. F. (2007). The role of fundamental frequency contours in the perception of speech against interfering speech. J Acoust Soc Am, 122, 1765.
6. Bronkhorst, A. W. (2000). The cocktail party phenomenon: A review of research on speech intelligibility in multiple-talker conditions. Acta Acust, 86, 117-128. (Pubitemid 34103984)
7. Brown, G. G., Kindermann, S. S., Siegle, G. J., et al. (1999). Brain activation and pupil response during covert performance of the Stroop color word task. J Int Neuropsychol Soc, 5, 308-319. (Pubitemid 29292198)
8. Brungart, D. S. (2001). Informational and energetic masking effects in the perception of two simultaneous talkers. J Acoust Soc Am, 109, 1101-1109. (Pubitemid 32215916)
9. Brungart, D. S., Simpson, B. D., Ericson, M. A., et al. (2001). Informational and energetic masking effects in the perception of multiple simultaneous talkers. J Acoust Soc Am, 110, 2527-2538.
10. Conway, A. R., Cowan, N., Bunting, M. F. (2001). The cocktail party phenomenon revisited: The importance of working memory capacity. Psychon Bull Rev, 8, 331-335. (Pubitemid 33604184)
11. Deaton, J. E., & Parasuraman, R. (1993). Sensory and cognitive vigilance: Effects of age on performance and subjective workload. Hum Perform, 6, 71-79.
12. Ezzantian, P., Li, L., Pichora-Fuller, M. K., et al. (2011). The effect of priming on release from informational masking is equivalent for younger and older adults. Ear Hear, 31, 84-96.
13. Festen, J. M., & Plomp, R. (1990). Effects of fuctuating noise and interfering speech on the speech-reception threshold for impaired and normal hearing. J Acoust Soc Am, 88, 1725-1736.
14. Fitzpatrick, R. (1991). Surveys of patient satisfaction: II-Designing a questionnaire and conducting a survey. BMJ, 302, 1129-1132.
15. Francis, A. L., & Nusbaum, H. C. (2009). Effects of intelligibility on working memory demand for speech perception. Atten Percept Psychophys, 71, 1360-1374.
16. Freyman, R. L., Balakrishnan, U., Helfer, K. S. (2004). Effect of number of masking talkers and auditory priming on informational masking in speech recognition. J Acoust Soc Am, 115(5 Pt 1), 2246-2256. (Pubitemid 38542138)
17. Freyman, R. L., Helfer, K. S., McCall, D. D., et al. (1999). The role of perceived spatial separation in the unmasking of speech. J Acoust Soc Am, 106, 3578-3588. (Pubitemid 129520722)
18. George, E. L., Zekveld, A. A., Kramer, S. E., et al. (2007). Auditory and nonauditory factors affecting speech reception in noise by older listeners. J Acoust Soc Am, 121, 2362-2375. (Pubitemid 46553051)
19. Graham, R., & Carter, C. (2000). Comparison of speech input and manual control of in-car devices while on the move. Pers Tech, 4, 155-164.
20. Hällgren, M., Larsby, B., Lyxell, B., et al. (2005). Speech understanding in quiet and noise, with and without hearing aids. Int J Audiol, 44, 574-583. (Pubitemid 41608204)
21. Hygge, S., Ronnberg, J., Larsby, B., et al. (1992). Normal-hearing and hearing-impaired subjects' ability to just follow conversation in competing speech, reversed speech, and noise backgrounds. J Speech Hear Res, 35, 208-215.
22. Hyönä, J., Tommola, J., Alaja, A. M. (1995). Pupil-dilation as a measure of processing load in simultaneous interpretation and other language tasks. Q J Exp Psychol Sect A Hum Exp Psychol, 48, 598-612.
23. Jones, F. N., & Marcus, M. J. (1961). The subject effect in judgments of subjective magnitude. J Exp Psychol, 61, 40-44.
24. Kahneman, D., & Beatty, J. (1966). Pupil diameter and load on memory. Science, 154, 1583-1585.
25. Kahneman, D., & Wright, P. (1971). Changes of pupil size and rehearsal strategies in a short-term memory task. Q J Exp Psychol, 23, 187-196.
26. Kidd, G., Jr, Mason, C. R., Richards, V. M., et al. (2008). Informational masking. In W. A. Yost, A. N. Popper, R. R. Fay (Eds). Auditory Perception of Sound Sources (pp. 143-190). New York: Springer Science 1 Business Media.
27. Kramer, S. E., Kapteyn, T. S., Festen, J. M., et al. (1997). Assessing aspects of auditory handicap by means of pupil dilatation. Audiology, 36, 155-164. (Pubitemid 27254859)
28. Kramer, S. E., Kapteyn, T. S., Festen, J. M., et al. (1996). The relationship between self reported hearing disability and measures of auditory disability. Audiology, 35, 277-287. (Pubitemid 26377635)
29. Kramer, S. E., Zekveld, A. A., Houtgast, T. (2009). Measuring cognitive factors in speech comprehension: The value of using the Text Reception Threshold test as a visual equivalent of the SRT test. Scand J Psychol, 50, 507-515.
30. Larsby, B., Hallgren, M., Lyxell, B. (2008). The interference of different background noises on speech processing in elderly hearing impaired subjects. Int J Audiol, 47 Suppl 2, S83-S90.
31. Larsby, B., Hallgren, M., Lyxell, B., et al. (2005). Cognitive performance and perceived effort in speech processing tasks: Effects of different noise backgrounds in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired subjects. Int J Audiol, 44, 131-143. (Pubitemid 40694909)
32. Levitt, H. (1971). Transformed up-down methods in psychoacoustics. J Acoust Soc Am, 49, 467.
33. Li, L., Daneman, M., Qi, J. G., et al. (2004). Does the information content of an irrelevant source differentially affect spoken word recognition in younger and older adults? J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform, 30, 1077-1091. (Pubitemid 39603851)
34. Lunner, T., & Sundewall-Thorén, E. (2007). Interactions between cognition, compression, and listening conditions: Effects on speech-in-noise performance in a two-channel hearing aid. J Am Acad Audiol, 18, 604-617. (Pubitemid 351175762)
35. Parsons, T. W. (1976). Separation of speech from intefering speech by means of harmonic selection. J Acoust Soc Am, 60, 911-918. (Pubitemid 8016350)
36. Pichora-Fuller, M. K. (2003). Processing speech and timing in aging adults: Psychoacoustics, speech perception, and comprehension. Int J Audiol, 42, S59-S67. (Pubitemid 41626011)
37. Piquado, T., Isaacowitz, D., Wingfeld, A. (2010). Pupillometry as a measure of cognitive effort in younger and older adults. Psychophysiology, 47, 560-569.
38. Plomp, R., & Mimpen, A. M. (1979). Improving the reliability of testing the speech reception threshold for sentences. Audiol, 18, 43-52. (Pubitemid 9111887)
39. Pollack, I. (1975). Auditory informational masking. J Acoust Soc Am, 57 (Suppl. 1), 5.
40. Rabbitt, P. M. (1968). Channel-capacity, intelligibility and immediate memory. Q J Exp Psychol, 20, 241-248.
41. Rhebergen, K. S., Versfeld, N. J., & Dreschler, W. A. (2005). Release from informational masking by time reversal of native and non-native interfering speech. J Acoust Soc Am, 118, 1274-1277. (Pubitemid 41318560)
42. Rönnberg, J. (2003). Cognition in the hearing impaired and deaf as a bridge between signal and dialogue: A framework and a model. Int J Audiol, 42 Suppl 1, S68-S76. (Pubitemid 41626012)
43. Rönnberg, J., Rudner, M., Foo, C., et al. (2008). Cognition counts: A working memory system for ease of language understanding (ELU). Int J Audiol, 47 Suppl 2, S99-S105.
44. Rönnberg, J., Rudner, M., Lunner, T., et al. (2010). When cognition kicks in: Working memory and speech understanding in noise. Noise Health, 12, 227-233.
45. Schneider, B. A., Li, L., Daneman, M. (2007). How competing speech interferes with speech comprehension in everyday listening situations. J Am Acad Audiol, 18, 559-572. (Pubitemid 351175759)
46. Scott, S. K., & Johnsrude, I. S. (2003). The neuroanatomical and functional organization of speech perception. Trends Neurosci, 26, 100-107. (Pubitemid 36110544)
47. Shinn-Cunningham, B., Ihlefeld, A., Satyavarta, et al. (2005). Bottom-up and top-down infuences on spatial unmasking. Acta Acust United Acust, 91, 967-979. (Pubitemid 43066731)
48. Stern, J. A., Boyer, D., Schroeder, D. (1994). Blink rate: A possible measure of fatigue. Hum Factors, 36, 285-297. (Pubitemid 24247276)
49. Talsma, D., & Woldorff, M. G. (2005). Methods for the estimation and removal of artifacts and overlap in ERP data. In T. Handy (Ed.) Event-Related Potentials: A Methods Handbook (pp. 115-148). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
50. Tomporowski, P. D. (2003). Performance and perceptions of workload among young and older adults: Effects of practice during cognitively demanding tasks. Educ Gerontol, 29, 447-466. (Pubitemid 36704218)
51. Tun, P. A., O'Kane, G., Wingfeld, A. (2002). Distraction by competing speech in young and older adult listeners. Psychol Aging, 17, 453-467. (Pubitemid 35013286)
52. Van Gerven, P. W., Paas, F., Van Merrienboer, J. J., et al. (2004). Memory load and the cognitive pupillary response in aging. Psychophysiology, 41, 167-174. (Pubitemid 38524089)
53. Versfeld, N. J., Daalder, L., Festen, J. M. (2000). Method for the selection of sentence materials for effcient measurement of the speech reception threshold. J Acoust Soc Am, 107, 1671-1684. (Pubitemid 30141708)
54. Wingfeld, A., Tun, P. A., McCoy, S. L. (2005). Hearing loss in older adulthood: What it is and how it interacts with cognitive performance. Curr Dir Psychol Sci, 14, 144-148. (Pubitemid 41311934)
55. Zekveld, A. A., Kramer, S. E., Festen, J. M. (2010). Pupil response as an indication of effortful listening: The infuence of sentence intelligibility. Ear Hear, 31, 480-490.
56. Zekveld, A. A., Kramer, S. E., Festen, J. M. (2011). Cognitive load during speech perception in noise: The infuence of age, hearing loss, and cognition on the pupil response. Ear Hear, 32, 498-510.
57. Zekveld, A. A., Kramer, S. E., Kessens, J. M., et al. (2009). User evaluation of a communication system that automatically generates captions to improve telephone communication. Trends Amplif, 13, 44-68.