The pupil response is sensitive to divided attention during speech processing

Hearing Research

Volumn 312, Issue , 2014, Pages 114-120

  Koelewijn, Thomas ^a   Shinn Cunningham, Barbara G ^b   Zekveld, Adriana A ^a,c   Kramer, Sophia E ^a  

^a VU UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^b Boston University   (United States)

^c LINKÖPING UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; ATTENTION; AUDITORY SYSTEM FUNCTION; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIVIDING ATTENTION; EVOKED VISUAL RESPONSE; EYE MOVEMENT; FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT; FUNCTIONS OF THE SENSE ORGANS AND THE SENSORY NERVOUS SYSTEM; HUMAN; LATENT PERIOD; MENTAL PERFORMANCE; MYDRIASIS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUPIL RESPONSE; SELECTIVE ATTENTION; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; SIGNAL NOISE RATIO; SIGNAL PROCESSING; SPEECH ANALYSIS; SPEECH PERCEPTION; SPEECH PROCESSING; STIMULUS RESPONSE; TASK PERFORMANCE; YOUNG ADULT; AUDITORY STIMULATION; FEMALE; HEMISPHERIC DOMINANCE; MALE; NOISE; PHYSIOLOGY; PROCEDURES; PUPIL; PUPIL REFLEX; SOUND DETECTION;

ACOUSTIC STIMULATION; ADULT; ATTENTION; FEMALE; FUNCTIONAL LATERALITY; HUMANS; MALE; NOISE; PUPIL; REFLEX, PUPILLARY; SIGNAL-TO-NOISE RATIO; SOUND LOCALIZATION; SPEECH PERCEPTION; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84898799758     PISSN: 03785955     EISSN: 18785891     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.heares.2014.03.010     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Ahern S., Beatty J. Pupillary responses during information processing vary with scholastic aptitude test scores. Science 1979, 205:1289-1292.
2. Allen K., Alais D., Carlile S. Speech intelligibility reduces over distance from an attended location: evidence for an auditory spatial gradient of attention. Percept. Psychophys. 2009, 71:164-173.
3. Aston-Jones G., Cohen J.D. An integrative theory of locus coeruleus-norepinephrine function: adaptive gain and optimal performance. Annu. Rev. Neurosci. 2005, 28:403-450.
4. Beatty J. Task-evoked pupillary responses, processing load, and the structure of processing resources. Psychol. Bull. 1982, 91:276-292.
5. Best V., Gallun F.J., Ihlefeld A., Shinn-Cunningham B.G. The influence of spatial separation on divided listening. J.Acoust. Soc. Am. 2006, 120:1506-1516.
6. Best V., Gallun F.J., Mason C.R., Kidd G., Shinn-Cunningham B.G. The impact of noise and hearing loss on the processing of simultaneous sentences. Ear Hear. 2010, 31:213-220.
7. Broadbent D.E. Perception and Communication 1958, 11-35. Pergamon Press, London.
8. Bronkhorst A. The cocktail party phenomenon: a review of research on speech intelligibility in multiple-talker conditions. Acustica 2000, 86:117-128.
9. Cherry E.C. Some experiments on the recognition of speech, with one and with two ears. J.Acoust. Soc. Am. 1953, 25:975-979.
10. Desjardins J.L., Doherty K.A. Age-related changes in listening effort for various types of masker noises. Ear Hear. 2013, 34:261-272.
11. Festen J.M., Plomp R. Effects of fluctuating noise and interfering speech on the speech-reception threshold for impaired and normal hearing. J.Acoust. Soc. Am. 1990, 88:1725-1736.
12. Gosselin P.A., Gagné J.P. Older adults expend more listening effort than young adults recognizing audiovisual speech in noise. Int. J. Audiol. 2011, 2011:1-7.
13. Hoeks B., Levelt W. Pupillary dilation as a measure of attention: a quantitative system analysis. Behav. Res. Meth. Instrum. Comput. 1993, 25:16-26.
14. Hyönä J., Tommola J., Alaja A. Pupil dilation as a measure of processing load in simultaneous interpretation and other language tasks. Quart. J. Exp. Psychol. A Hum. Exp. Psychol. 1995, 48:598-612.
15. Ihlefeld A., Shinn-Cunningham B. Disentangling the effects of spatial cues on selection and formation of auditory objects. J.Acoust. Soc. Am. 2008, 124:2224-2235.
16. Iriki A., Tanaka M., Iwamura Y. Attention-induced neuronal activity in the monkey somatosensory cortex revealed by pupillometrics. Neurosci. Res. 1996, 25:173-181.
17. Kahneman D., Beatty J. Pupil diameter and load on memory. Science 1966, 154:1583-1585.
18. Koelewijn T., Zekveld A.A., Festen J.M., Kramer S.E. Pupil dilation uncovers extra listening effort in the presence of a single-talker masker. Ear Hear. 2012, 33:291-300.
19. Koelewijn T., Zekveld A.A., Festen J.M., Rönnberg J., Kramer S.E. Processing load induced by informational masking is related to linguistic abilities. Int. J. Otolaryngol. 2012, 2012:1-11.
20. Kramer S.E., Lorens A., Coninx F., Zekveld A.A., Piotrowska A., Skarzynski H. Processing load during listening: the influence of task characteristics on the pupil response. Lang. Cogn. Process. 2013, 28:426-442.
21. Kramer S., Kapteyn T., Festen J., Kuik D. Assessing aspects of auditory handicap by means of pupil dilatation. Int. J. Audiol. 1997, 36:155-164.
22. Lavie N., Hirst A., De Fockert J.W., Viding E. Load theory of selective attention and cognitive control. J.Exp. Psychol. Gen. 2004, 133:339-354.
23. Lunner T., Sundewall-Thorén E. Interactions between cognition, compression, and listening conditions: effects on speech-in-noise performance in a two-channel hearing aid. J.Am. Acad. Audiol. 2007, 18:604-617.
24. Mattys S.L., Davis M.H., Bradlow A.R., Scott S.K. Speech recognition in adverse conditions: a review. Lang. Cogn. Process. 2012, 27:953-978.
25. Meer E.V.D., Beyer R., Horn J., Foth M., Bornemann B., Ries J., et al. Resource allocation and fluid intelligence: insights from pupillometry. Psychophysiology 2010, 47:158-169.
26. Ng E.H.N., Rudner M., Lunner T., Pedersen M.S., Rönnberg J. Effects of noise and working memory capacity on memory processing of speech for hearing-aid users. Int. J. Audiol. 2013, 52:433-441.
27. Picou E., Ricketts T. Visual cues and listening effort: individual variability. J.Speech Lang. Hear. Res. 2011, 54:1416-1430.
28. Rönnberg J., Lunner T., Zekveld A.A., Sörqvist P., Danielsson H., Lyxell, et al. The ease of language understanding (ELU) model: theoretical, empirical, and clinical advances. Front. Syst. Neurosci. 2013, 7:1-17.
29. Rudner M., Rönnberg J., Lunner T. Working memory supports listening in noise for persons with hearing impairment. J.Am. Acad. Audiol. 2011, 22:156-167.
30. Ruggles D., Bharadwaj H., Shinn-Cunningham B.G. Normal hearing is not enough to guarantee robust encoding of suprathreshold features important in everyday communication. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U S A 2011, 108:15516-15521.
31. Versfeld N., Daalder L., Festen J., Houtgast T. Method for the selection of sentence materials for efficient measurement of the speech reception threshold. J.Acoust. Soc. Am. 2000, 107:1671-1684.
32. Zekveld A., Kramer S., Festen J. Pupil response as an indication of effortful listening: the influence of sentence intelligibility. Ear Hear. 2010, 31:480-490.
33. Zekveld A., Kramer S., Festen J. Cognitive load during speech perception in noise: the influence of age, hearing loss, and cognition on the pupil response. Ear Hear. 2011, 32:498-510.