The eye as a window to the listening brain: Neural correlates of pupil size as a measure of cognitive listening load

NeuroImage

Volumn 101, Issue , 2014, Pages 76-86

  Zekveld, Adriana A ^a,b   Heslenfeld, Dirk J ^c   Johnsrude, Ingrid S ^b,d,e   Versfeld, Niek J ^a   Kramer, Sophia E ^a  

^a VU UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^b Linköping University   (Sweden)

^c VU UNIVERSITY AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

^d QUEEN S UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^e UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN ONTARIO   (Canada)

Author keywords

Cognitive processing load; Degraded speech perception; Functional magnetic resonance imaging; Pupillometry

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ANTERIOR CINGULATE; ARTICLE; AUDITORY DISCRIMINATION; AUDITORY STIMULATION; BOLD SIGNAL; COGNITION; COMPREHENSION; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; FRONTAL CORTEX; FUNCTIONAL MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; HEARING; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; IMAGE ANALYSIS; MALE; NERVE CELL NETWORK; PATTERN RECOGNITION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUPIL; PUPIL DILATION; SOUND ANALYSIS; SPEECH INTELLIGIBILITY; SPEECH PERCEPTION; STIMULUS RESPONSE; SUPERIOR TEMPORAL GYRUS; TASK PERFORMANCE; VISUAL SYSTEM PARAMETERS; FRONTAL LOBE; FUNCTIONAL NEUROIMAGING; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; OCULOGRAPHY; PHYSIOLOGY; PROCEDURES; TEMPORAL LOBE; YOUNG ADULT; BRAIN REGION; COGNITIVE LISTENING LOAD; DORSAL ANTERIOR CINGULATE CORTEX; MASKING; NORMAL HUMAN; PUPILLOMETRY; SPEECH DISCRIMINATION; SPEECH MASKING; VENTRAL ANTERIOR CINGULATE CORTEX;

ADULT; EYE MOVEMENT MEASUREMENTS; FEMALE; FRONTAL LOBE; FUNCTIONAL NEUROIMAGING; HUMANS; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MALE; PUPIL; SPEECH INTELLIGIBILITY; SPEECH PERCEPTION; TEMPORAL LOBE; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84904616418     PISSN: 10538119     EISSN: 10959572     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2014.06.069     Document Type: Article

References (55)

1. Alnaes D., Sneve M.H., Espeseth T., van de Pavert S.H.P., Laeng B. Pupil size signals mental effort deployed during multiple object tracking and predicts brain activity in the dorsal attention network and locus coeruleus. J. Vis. 2014, 14:1-20.
2. Aston-Jones G., Rajkowski J., Cohen J. Role of locus coeruleus in attention and behavioral flexibility. Biol. Psychiatry 1999, 46:1309-1320.
3. Bailey I.L., Lovie J.E. The design and use of a new near-vision chart. Am. J. Optom. Physiol. Optic 1980, 57:378-387.
4. Beatty J. Task-evoked pupillary responses, processing load, and the structure of processing resources. Psychol. Bull. 1982, 91:276-292.
5. Beatty J., Lucero-Wagoner B. The pupillary system. Handbook of Psychophysiology 2000, Cambridge University Press, New York. 2nd ed. J.T. Cacioppo, L.G. Tassinary, G.G. Berntson (Eds.).
6. Brooks J.C.W., Faull O.K., Pattinson K.T.S., Jenkinson M. Physiological noise in brainstem fMRI. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 2013, 7:623. 10.3389/fnhum.2013.00623.
7. Brown G.G., Kindermann S.S., Siegle G.J., Granholm E., Wong E.C., Buxton R.B. Brain activation and pupil response during covert performance of the Stroop Color Word task. J. Int. Neuropsychol. Soc. 1999, 5:308-319.
8. Corbetta M., Patel G., Shulman G.L. The reorienting system of the human brain: from environment to theory of mind. Neuron 2008, 58(3):306-324.
9. Critchley H.D., Tang J., Glaser D., Butterworth B., Dolan R.J. Anterior cingulate activity during error and autonomic response. Neuroimage 2005, 27:885-895.
10. Davis M.H., Johnsrude I.S. Hierarchical processing in spoken language comprehension. J. Neurosci. 2003, 23:3423-3431.
11. Davis M.H., Johnsrude I.S. Hearing speech sounds: top-down influences on the interface between audition and speech perception. Hear. Res. 2007, 229:132-147.
12. Davis M.H., Ford M.A., Kherif F., Johnsrude I.S. Does semantic context benefit speech understanding through "top-down" processes? Evidence from time-resolved sparse fMRI. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 2011, 23(12):3914-3932. 10.1162/jocn_a_00084.
13. Einhäuser W., Koch C., Carter O.L. Pupil dilation betrays the timing of decisions. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 2010, 4(18):18. 10.3389/fnhum.2010.00018.
14. Engelhardt P.E., Ferreira F., Patsenko E.G. Pupillometry reveals processing load during spoken language comprehension. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 2010, 63:639-645.
15. Erb J., Obleser J. Upregulation of cognitive control networks in older adults' speech comprehension. Front. Syst. Neurosci. 2013, 7:116.
16. 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.
17. Geancintov T., Peavler W. Pupillography in industrial fatigue assessment. J. Appl. Psychol. 1974, 59:213-216.
18. Granholm E., Asarnow R.F., Sarkin A.J., Dykes K.L. Pupillary responses index cognitive resource limitations. Psychophysiology 1996, 33:457-461.
19. Hall D.A., Haggard M.P., Akeroyd M.A., Palmer A.R., Summerfield A.Q., Elliott M.R., Gurney E.M., Bowtell R.W. "Sparse" temporal sampling in auditory fMRI. Hum. Brain Mapp. 1999, 7:213-223.
20. Ishihara S. The series of plates designed as a test for colour deficiency 1989, Kanehara, Tokyo.
21. Johnstone T., van Reekum C.M., Urry H.L., Kalin N.H., Davidson R.J. Failure to regulate: counterproductive recruitment of top-down prefrontal-subcortical circuitry in major depression. J. Neurosci. 2007, 27:8877-8884.
22. Joshi S., Kalwani R.M., Gold J.I. The relationship between locus coeruleus neuronal activity and pupil diameter. Soc. Neurosci. 2013, (Abstracts 669.14/JJJ30).
23. Keren N.I., Lozar C.T., Harris K.C., Morgan P.S., Eckert M.A. In vivo mapping of the human locus coeruleus. Neuroimage 2009, 47:1261-1267.
24. 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.
25. Koelewijn T., Zekveld A.A., Festen J.M., Ronnberg J., Kramer S.E. Processing load induced by informational masking is related to linguistic abilities. Int. J. Otolaryngol. 2012, 2012:865731. 10.1155/2012/865731.
26. Kramer S.E., Lorens A., Coninx F., Zekveld A.A., Piotroweska A., Skarzynski H. Processing load during listening: the influence of task characteristics on the pupil response 2013.
27. Laeng B., Sirois S., Gredeback G. Pupillometry: a window to the preconscious?. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 2012, 7:18-27.
28. Levitt H. Transformed up-down methods in psychoacoustics. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1971, 49. (Suppl.).
29. Mackersie C.L., Cones H. Subjective and psychophysiological indexes of listening effort in a competing-talker task. J. Am. Acad. Audiol. 2011, 22:113-122.
30. Murphy P.R., O'Connell R.G., O'Sullivan, M., Robterson I.H., Balsters J.H. Pupil diameter covaries with BOLD activity in human locus coeruleus. Hum. Brain Mapp. 2014, 35:4140-4154.
31. Obleser J., Kotz S.A. Expectancy constraints in degraded speech modulate the language comprehension network. Cereb. Cortex 2010, 20(3):633-640.
32. Piquado T., Isaacowitz D., Wingfield A. Pupillometry as a measure of cognitive effort in younger and older adults. Psychophysiology 2010, 47:560-569.
33. Plomp R., Mimpen A.M. Improving the reliability of testing the speech reception threshold for sentences. Audiology 1979, 18:43-52.
34. Samuels E.R., Szabadi E. Functional neuroanatomy of the noradrenergic locus coeruleus: its roles in the regulation of arousal and autonomic function part I: principles of functional organisation. Curr. Neuropharmacol. 2008, 6:235-253.
35. Samuels E.R., Szabadi E. Functional neuroanatomy of the noradrenergic locus coeruleus: its roles in the regulation of arousal and autonomic function part II: physiological and pharmacological manipulations and pathological alterations of locus coeruleus activity in humans. Curr. Neuropharmacol. 2008, 6:254-285.
36. Scott S.K., McGettigan C. The neural processing of masked speech. Hear. Res. 2013, 303:58-66. 10.1016/j.heares.2013.05.001.
37. Scott S.K., Rosen S., Wickham L., Wise R.J.S. A positron emission tomography study of the neural basis of informational and energetic masking effects in speech perception. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2004, 115:813-821.
38. Scott S.K., Rosen S., Beaman C.P., Davis J.P., Wise R.J.S. The neural processing of masked speech: evidence for different mechanisms in the left and right temporal lobes. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2009, 125:1737-1743.
39. Shannon R.V., Zeng F.G., Kamath V., Wygonski J., Ekelid M. Speech recognition with primarily temporal cues. Science 1995, 270:303-304.
40. Siegle G.J., Steinhauer S.R., Stenger V.A., Konecky R., Carter C.S. Use of concurrent pupil dilation assessment to inform interpretation and analysis of fMRI data. Neuroimage 2003, 20:114-124.
41. Sterpenich V., D'Argembeau A., Desseilles M., Balteau E., Albouy G., Vandewalle G., Degueldre C., Luxen A., Collette F., Maquet P. The locus ceruleus is involved in the successful retrieval of emotional memories in humans. J. Neurosci. 2006, 26:7416-7423.
42. Tun P.A., McCoy S., Wingfield A. Aging, hearing acuity, and the attentional costs of effortful listening. Psychol. Aging 2009, 24:761-766.
43. van der Meer E., Beyer R., Horn J., Foth M., Bornemann B., Ries J., Kramer J., Warmuth E., Heekeren H.R., Wartenburger I. Resource allocation and fluid intelligence: insights from pupillometry. Psychophysiology 2010, 47:158-169.
44. van Orden K.F., Jung T.-P., Makeig S. Combined eye activity measures accurately estimate changes in sustained visual task performance. Biol. Psychiatry 2000, 52:221-240.
45. van Steenbergen B., Band G.P.H. Pupil dilation in the Simon task as a marker of conflict processing. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 2013, 7:215. 10.3389/fnhum.2013.00215.
46. van Strien J.W. Classificatie van links- en rechtshandige proefpersonen. Ned. Tijdschr. Psychol. 1992, 47:88-92.
47. Versfeld N.J., Daalder L., Festen J.M., 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.
48. Wild C.J., Yusuf A., Wilson D.E., Peelle J.E., Davis M.H., Johnsrude I.S. Effortful listening: the processing of degraded speech depends critically on attention. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 2012, 32:14010-14021.
49. Wong P.C.M., Xumin Jin J., Gunasekera G.M., Abel R., Lee E.R., Dhar S. Aging and cortical mechanisms of speech perception in noise. Neuropsychologia 2009, 47(3):693-703.
50. Worsley K.J., Marrett S., Neelin P., Vandal A.C., Friston K.J., Evans A.C. A unified statistical approach for determining significant signals in images of cerebral activation. Hum. Brain Mapp. 1996, 4:58-73.
51. Zekveld A.A., Kramer S.E. Cognitive processing load across a wide range of listening conditions: insights from pupillometry. Psychophysiology 2014, 51(3):277-284.
52. Zekveld A.A., Heslenfeld D.J., Festen J.M., Schoonhoven R. Top-down and bottom-up processes in speech comprehension. Neuroimage 2006, 32:1826-1836.
53. Zekveld A.A., Kramer S.E., Festen J.M. Pupil response as an indication of effortful listening: the influence of sentence intelligibility. Ear Hear. 2010, 31:480-490.
54. Zekveld A.A., Rudner M., Johnsrude I.S., Heslenfeld D.J., Ronnberg J. Behavioral and fMRI evidence that cognitive ability modulates the effect of semantic context on speech intelligibility. Brain Lang. 2012, 122:103-113.
55. Zekveld A.A., Festen J.M., Kramer S.E. Task difficulty differentially affects two measures of processing load: the pupil response during sentence processing and delayed cued recall of the sentences. J. Speech Lang. Hear. Res. 2013, 56:1156-1165. 10.1044/1092-4388.