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

International Journal of Audiology

Volumn 53, Issue 7, 2014, Pages 433-445

  McGarrigle, Ronan ^a   Munro, Kevin J ^a,b   Dawes, Piers ^a   Stewart, Andrew J ^a   Moore, David R ^a,c   Barry, Johanna G ^d   Amitay, Sygal ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER   (United Kingdom)

^b MANCHESTER UNIVERSITY NHS FOUNDATION TRUST   (United Kingdom)

^c CINCINNATI CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^d MRC INSTITUTE OF HEARING RESEARCH   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Fatigue; Hearing loss; Listening effort; Measurement techniques

Indexed keywords

AUDIOLOGY; CLASSIFICATION; COGNITION; COMPREHENSION; HEARING DISORDERS; HUMAN; MENTAL FATIGUE; NOISE; NOMENCLATURE; PATIENT; PERCEPTION; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PROCEDURES; PSYCHOLOGY; SPEECH INTELLIGIBILITY; SPEECH PERCEPTION;

AUDIOLOGY; COGNITION; COMPREHENSION; HEARING DISORDERS; HUMANS; MENTAL FATIGUE; NOISE; PERCEPTUAL MASKING; PERSONS WITH HEARING IMPAIRMENTS; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; SPEECH INTELLIGIBILITY; SPEECH PERCEPTION; TERMINOLOGY AS TOPIC;

EID: 84902194335     PISSN: 14992027     EISSN: 17088186     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3109/14992027.2014.890296     Document Type: Review

References (51)

1. Anderson Gosselin P. & Gagne J.P. 2011. Older adults expend more listening effort than young adults recognizing speech in noise. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 54, 944-958.
2. Bernarding C., Strauss D.J., Seidler H. & Corona-Strauss F.I. 2012. Neural correlates of listening effort related factors: Influence of age and hearing impairment. Brain Res Bull, 91, 21-30.
3. Boucsein W. 1992. Electrodermal Activity, New York: Plenum Press.
4. Brons I., Houben R. & Dreschler W.A. 2012. Perceptual effects of noise reduction with respect to personal preference, speech intelligibility, and listening effort. Ear Hear, 34, 29-41.
5. Bryant D., Chiaravalloti N.D. & Deluca J. 2004. Objective measurement of cognitive fatigue in multiple sclerosis. Rehabil Psychol, 49, 114-122.
6. Choi S., Lotto A., Lewis D., Hoover B. & Stelmachowicz P. 2008. Attention-al modulation of word recognition by children in a dual-task paradigm. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 51, 1042-1054.
7. Dawes P., Munro K., Kalluri S. & Edwards B. 2014. Acclimatization to hearing aids. Ear Hear, 35, 203-212.
8. Deluca J. 2005. Fatigue as a Window to the Brain, Cambridge: The MIT Press.
9. Desjardins J.L. & Doherty K.A. 2013. Age-related changes in listening effort for various types of masker noises. Ear Hear, 34, 261-272.
10. Fraser S., Gagné J-P., Alepins M. & Dubois P. 2011. Evaluating the effort expended to understand speech in noise using a dual-task paradigm: The effects of providing visual speech cues. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 53, 18-33.
11. Gatehouse S. & Gordon J. 1990. Response times to speech stimuli as measures of benefit from amplification. Brit J Audiol, 24, 63-68.
12. Gatehouse S. & Noble W. 2004. The speech, spatial and qualities of hearing scale (SSQ). Int J Audiol, 43, 85-99.
13. Hétu R., Riverin L., Lalande N., Getty L. & St-Cyr C. 1988. Qualitative analysis of the handicap associated with occupational hearing loss. Brit J Audiol, 22, 251-264.
14. Hicks C.B. & Tharpe A.M. 2002. Listening effort and fatigue in school-age children with and without hearing loss. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 45, 573-584.
15. Hornsby B.W. 2013. The effects of hearing-aid use on listening effort and mental fatigue associated with sustained speech processing demands. Ear Hear (accessed 1st May 2013, DOI: 10.1097/AUD. 0b013e31828003d8).
16. Houben R., van Doorn-Bierman M. & Dreschler W.A. 2013. Using response time to speech as a measure for listening effort. Int J Audiol 52, 753-761.
17. Howard C.S., Munro K.J. & Plack C.J. 2010. Listening effort at signal-to-noise ratios that are typical of the school classroom. Int J Audiol 49, 928-932.
18. Kahneman D. 1973. Attention and Effort, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Inc.
19. Karatekin C. 2004. Development of attentional allocation in the dual task paradigm. Int J Psychophysiol, 52, 7-21.
20. Kerlin J.R., Shahin A.J. & Miller L.M. 2010. Attentional gain control of ongoing cortical speech representations in a " cocktail party ". J Neurosci 30, 620-628.
21. Koelewijn T., Zekveld A.A., Festen J.M. & Kramer S.E. 2012. Pupil dilation uncovers extra listening effort in the presence of a single-talker masker. Ear Hear, 33, 291-300.
22. Kramer S.E., Kapteyn T.S. & Houtgast T. 2006. Occupational performance: Comparing normally-hearing and hearing-impaired employees using the Amsterdam checklist for hearing and work. Int J Audiol, 45, 503-512.
23. Kramer S.E., Lorens A., Coninx F., Zekveld A.A., Piotrowska A. et al. 2012. Processing load during listening: The influence of task characteristics on the pupil response. Lang Cognitive Proc, 28, 426-442.
24. Kuchinsky S.E., Ahlstrom J.B., Vaden K.I., Cute S.L., Humes L.E. et al. 2013. Pupil size varies with word listening and response selection dif-ficulty in older adults with hearing loss. Psychophysiol, 50, 23-34.
25. Laeng B., Sirois S. & Gredebäck G. 2012. Pupillometry: A window to the preconscious? Perspect Psychol Sci, 7, 18-27.
26. Larsby B., Hällgren M., Lyxell B. & Arlinger S. 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.
27. Luts H., Eneman K., Wouters J., Schulte M., Vormann M. et al. 2010. Mul-ticenter evaluation of signal enhancement algorithms for hearing aids. J Acoust Soc Am, 127, 1491-1505.
28. Mackersie C.L. & Cones H. 2011. Subjective and psychophysiological indices of listening effort in a competing-talker task. J Am Acad Audiol 22, 113-122.
29. MacPherson A. & Akeroyd M.A. 2013. The Glasgow monitoring of uninterrupted speech task: A naturalistic measure of speech intelligibility in noise. J Acoust Soc Am, 133, 3379.
30. Mattys S.L., Davis M.H., Bradlow A.R. & Scott S.K. 2012. Speech recognition in adverse conditions: A review. Lang Cognitive Proc, 27, 953-978.
31. McAuliffe M.J., Wilding P.J., Rickard N.A. & O'Beirne G.A. 2012. Effect of speaker age on speech recognition and perceived listening effort in older adults with hearing loss. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 55, 838-847.
32. Mishra S., Lunner T., Stenfelt S., Rönnberg J. & Rudner, M. 2013. Seeing the talker ' s face supports executive processing of speech in steady state noise. Front Syst Neurosci (accessed 12th January 2014, DOI: 10.3389/fnsys.2013.00096).
33. Nachtegaal J., Kuik D.J., Anema J.R., Goverts S.T., Festen J.M. et al. 2009. Hearing status, need for recovery after work, and psychosocial work characteristics: Results from an internet-based national survey on hearing. Int J Audiol, 48, 684-691.
34. Nagle K.F. & Eadie T.L. 2012. Listener effort for highly intelligible trache-oesophageal speech. J Commun Disord, 45, 235-245.
35. Obleser J. & Kotz S.A. 2011. Multiple brain signatures of integration in the comprehension of degraded speech. NeuroImage, 55, 713-723.
36. Obleser J., Wöstmann M., Hellbernd N., Wilsch A. & Maess B. 2012. Adverse listening conditions and memory load drive a common alpha oscillatory network. J Neurosci, 32, 12376-12383.
37. Panico J. & Healey E.C. 2009. Influence of text type, topic familiarity, and stuttering frequency on listener recall, comprehension, and mental effort. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 52, 534-546.
38. Picou E.M., Ricketts T.A. & Hornsby B.W.Y. 2011. Visual cues and listening effort: Individual variability. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 54, 1416-1430.
39. Piquado T., Benichov J.I., Brownell H. & Wingfield A. 2012. The hidden effect of hearing acuity on speech recall, and compensatory effects of self-paced listening. Int J Audiol, 51, 576-583.
40. Piquado T., Isaacowitz D. & Wingfield A. 2010. Pupillometry as a measure of cognitive effort in younger and older adults. Psychophysiol 47, 560-569.
41. Rudner M., Lunner T., Behrens T., Sundewall Thorén E. & Rönnberg J. 2012. Working memory capacity may influence perceived effort during aided speech recognition in noise. J Am Acad Audiol, 23, 577-589.
42. Sarampalis A., Kalluri S., Edwards B. & Hafter E. 2009. Objective measures of listening effort: Effects of background noise and noise reduction. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 52, 1230-1240.
43. Sauseng P. & Klimesch W. 2008. What does phase information of oscillatory brain activity tell us about cognitive processes? Neurosci Biobehav Rev 32, 1001-1013.
44. Shinn-Cunningham B.G. & Best V. 2008. Selective attention in normal and impaired hearing. Trends Amplif, 12, 283-299.
45. Soanes C. & Stevenson A. 2004. Concise Oxford English Dictionary. New York: Oxford University Press.
46. Styles E.A. 2006. The Psychology of Attention: Second Edition. New York: Psychology Press.
47. Tun P.A., McCoy S. & Wingfield A. 2009. Age, hearing acuity, and the at-tentional costs of effortful listening. Psychol Aging, 24, 761-766.
48. van Esch T.E.M., Kollmeier B., Vormann M., Lyzenga J., Houtgast T. et al. 2013. Evaluation of the preliminary auditory profile test battery in an international multi-centre study. Int J Audiol, 52, 305-321.
49. Wild C.J., Yusuf A., Wilson D.E., Peelle J.E., Davis M.H. et al. 2012. Effortful listening: The processing of degraded speech depends critically on attention. J Neurosci, 32, 14010-14021.
50. Zekveld A.A., Kramer S.E. & Festen J.M. 2010. Pupil response as an indication of effortful listening: The influence of sentence intelligibility. Ear Hear, 31, 480-490.
51. Zekveld A.A., Kramer S.E. & Festen J.M. 2011. Cognitive load during speech perception in noise: The influence of age, hearing loss, and cognition on the pupil response. Ear Hear, 32, 498-510.