The effect of changing the secondary task in dual-task paradigms for measuring listening effort

Ear and Hearing

Volumn 35, Issue 6, 2014, Pages 611-622

  Picou, Erin M ^a   Ricketts, Todd A ^a  

^a VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Background noise; Dual task paradigm; Listening effort; Visual cues

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; AUDITORY STIMULATION; CASE CONTROL STUDY; HUMAN; MIDDLE AGED; PATHOPHYSIOLOGY; PERCEPTION DEAFNESS; PHOTOSTIMULATION; PSYCHOLOGY; SIGNAL NOISE RATIO; SPEECH PERCEPTION; TASK PERFORMANCE; YOUNG ADULT;

ACOUSTIC STIMULATION; ADULT; AGED; CASE-CONTROL STUDIES; HEARING LOSS, SENSORINEURAL; HUMANS; MIDDLE AGED; PHOTIC STIMULATION; SIGNAL-TO-NOISE RATIO; SPEECH PERCEPTION; TASK PERFORMANCE AND ANALYSIS; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84927602158     PISSN: 01960202     EISSN: 15384667     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/AUD.0000000000000055     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (69)

1. Baddeley, A. (2000). The episodic buffer: a new component of working memory? Trends Cogn Sci, 4, 417-423.
2. Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. J. (1974). Working memory. In G. Bower (Ed). The Psychology of Learning and Motivation: Advances in Research and Theory Vol. 8, (pp. 47-89). New York: Academic Press.
3. Bentler, R., Wu, Y. H., Kettel, J., et al. (2008). Digital noise reduction: outcomes from laboratory and field studies. Int J Audiol, 47, 447-460.
4. Ching, T. Y., Dillon, H., Byrne, D. (1998). Speech recognition of hearingimpaired listeners: predictions from audibility and the limited role of high-frequency amplification. J Acoust Soc Am, 103, 1128-1140.
5. Cox, R. M., Alexander, G. C., Gilmore, C. (1987). Development of the Connected Speech Test (CST). Ear Hear, 8(5 Suppl), 119S-126S.
6. Cox, R. M., Alexander, G. C., Gilmore, C., et al. (1988). Use of the Connected Speech Test (CST) with hearing-impaired listeners. Ear Hear, 9, 198-207.
7. Craik, F. I., & Lockhart, R. S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. J Verbal Learning Verbal Behav, 11, 671-684.
8. Craik, F. I., & McDowd, J. M. (1987). Age differences in recall and recognition. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn, 13, 474-479.
9. Donk, M., & Sanders, A. F. (1989). Resources and dual-task performance; resource allocation versus task integration. Acta Psychol (Amst), 72, 221-232.
10. Downs, D. W. (1982). Effects of hearing and use on speech discrimination and listening effort. J Speech Hear Disord, 47, 189-193.
11. Downs, D. W., & Crum, M. A. (1978). Processing demands during auditory learning under degraded listening conditions. J Speech Hear Res, 21, 702-714.
12. Duchek, J. M., & Neely, J. H. (1989). A dissociative word-frequency X levels-of-processing interaction in episodic recognition and lexical decision tasks. Mem Cognit, 17, 148-162.
13. Erber, N. P. (1975). Auditory-visual perception of speech. J Speech Hear Disord, 40, 481-492.
14. Eysenck, M. W., & Eysenck, M. C. (1979). Processing depth, elaboration of encoding, memory stores, and expended processing capacity. J Exp Psychol Human Learn, 5, 472-484.
15. Feuerstein, J. F. (1992). Monaural versus binaural hearing: ease of listening, word recognition, and attentional effort. Ear Hear, 13, 80-86.
16. Fraser, S., Gagné, J. P., Alepins, M., et al. (2010). 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.
17. Gatehouse, S., & Gordon, J. (1990). Response times to speech stimuli as measures of benefit from amplification. Br J Audiol, 24, 63-68.
18. Gatehouse, S., & Noble, W. (2004). The Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing Scale (SSQ). Int J Audiol, 43, 85-99.
19. Gopher, D., Brickner, M., Navon, D. (1982). Different difficulty manipulations interact differently with task emphasis: evidence for multiple resources. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform, 8, 146-157.
20. Gosselin, P. A., & 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.
21. Grant, K. W., & Seitz, P. F. (1998). Measures of auditory-visual integration in nonsense syllables and sentences. J Acoust Soc Am, 104, 2438-2450.
22. 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.
23. Hasher, L., & Zacks, R. T. (1979). Automatic and effortful processes in memory. J Exp Psychol Gen, 108, 356-388.
24. Heinrich, A., Schneider, B. A., Craik, F. I. (2008). Investigating the influence of continuous babble on auditory short-term memory performance. Q J Exp Psychol (Hove), 61, 735-751.
25. Hetherington, R. (1954). The Shellen chart as a test of visual acuity. Psychological Research, 24, 349-357.
26. Hétu, R., Jones, L., Getty, L. (1993). The impact of acquired hearing impairment on intimate relationships: implications for rehabilitation. Audiology, 32, 363-381.
27. Hétu, R., Riverin, L., Lalande, N., et al. (1988). Qualitative analysis of the handicap associated with occupational hearing loss. Br J Audiol, 22, 251-264.
28. Hicks, C., & Tharpe, A. (2002). Listening effort and fatigue in school-age children with and without hearing loss. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 45, 573.
29. Hornsby, B. W. (2013). The effects of hearing aid use on listening effort and mental fatigue associated with sustained speech processing demands. Ear Hear, 34, 523-534.
30. Hornsby, B. W., Johnson, E. E., Picou, E. (2011). Effects of degree and configuration of hearing loss on the contribution of high- and low-frequency speech information to bilateral speech understanding. Ear Hear, 32, 543-555.
31. Hua, H., Karlsson, J., Widén, S., et al. (2013). Quality of life, effort and disturbance perceived in noise: A comparison between employees with aided hearing impairment and normal hearing. Int J Audiol [Early Online], 52, 642-649.
32. Humes, L. E. (2007). The contributions of audibility and cognitive factors to the benefit provided by amplified speech to older adults. J Am Acad Audiol, 18, 590-603.
33. Kahneman, D. (1973). Attention and Effort. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
34. Kramer, S., Kapteyn, T., Festen, J., et al. (1997). Assessing aspects of auditory handicap by means of pupil dilatation. Int J Audiol, 36, 155-164.
35. 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.
36. Kuchinsky, S. E., Ahlstrom, J. B., Vaden, K. I. Jr, et al. (2013). Pupil size varies with word listening and response selection difficulty in older adults with hearing loss. Psychophysiology, 50, 23-34.
37. Larsby, B., Hällgren, 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.
38. Lin, F. R., Thorpe, R., Gordon-Salant, S., et al. (2011). Hearing loss prevalence and risk factors among older adults in the United States. J Gerontol A: Biol Sci and Med Sci, 66, 582-590.
39. Lorsbach, T. C., & Simpson, G. B. (1988). Dual-task performance as a function of adult age and task complexity. Psychol Aging, 3, 210-212.
40. 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.
41. McCoy, S., Tun, P., Cox, C., et al. (2005). Hearing loss and perceptual effort: Downstream effects on older adults' memory for speech. The Q J Exp Psychol A, 58, 22-33.
42. McLeod, P. (1977). A dual task response modality effect: Support for multiprocessor models of attention. Q J Exp Psychol, 29, 651-667.
43. Mishra, S., Lunner, T., Stenfelt, S., et al. (2013). Visual information can hinder working memory processing of speech. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 56, 1120-1132.
44. Murphy, D., Craik, F., Li, K., et al. (2000). Comparing the effects of aging and background noise on short-term memory performance. Psychology and Aging, 15, 323-334.
45. Nachtegaal, J., Kuik, D. J., Anema, J. R., 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.
46. O'Neill, J. J. (1954). Contributions of the visual components of oral symbols to speech comprehension. J Speech Hear Disord, 19, 429-439.
47. Pichora-Fuller, M. K., Schneider, B. A., Daneman, M. (1995). How young and old adults listen to and remember speech in noise. J Acoust Soc Am, 97, 593-608.
48. Picou, E. M., Aspell, E., Ricketts, T. A. (2014). Potential benefits and limitations of three types of directional processing in hearing aids. Ear Hear, 35, 339-352.
49. Picou, E. M., Ricketts, T. A., Hornsby, B. W. (2013). How hearing aids, background noise, and visual cues influence objective listening effort. Ear Hear, 34, e52-e64.
50. 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.
51. Piquado, T., Isaacowitz, D., Wingfield, A. (2010). Pupillometry as a measure of cognitive effort in younger and older adults. Psychophysiology, 47, 560-569.
52. Rabbitt, P. M. (1968). Channel-capacity, intelligibility and immediate memory. Q J Exp Psychol, 20, 241-248.
53. Rabbitt, P. (1991). Mild hearing loss can cause apparent memory failures which increase with age and reduce with IQ. Acta Oto-Laryngologica, 111, 167-176.
54. Rakerd, B., Seitz, P. F., Whearty, M. (1996). Assessing the cognitive demands of speech listening for people with hearing losses. Ear Hear, 17, 97-106.
55. Ratcliff, R. (1993). Methods for dealing with reaction time outliers. Psychol Bull, 114, 510-532.
56. 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.
57. Rönnberg, J., Lunner, T., Zekveld, A., et al (2013). The Ease of Language Understanding (ELU) model: Theory, data, and clinical implications. Front Syst Neurosci, 7, 1-17.
58. 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, S99-105.
59. Rudner, M., Karlsson, T., Gunnarsson, J., et al. (2013). Levels of processing and language modality specificity in working memory. Neuropsychologia, 51, 656-666.
60. Sarampalis, A., Kalluri, S., Edwards, B., et al. (2009). Objective measures of listening effort: effects of background noise and noise reduction. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 52, 1230-1240.
61. Schulman, A. I. (1971). Recognition memory for targets from a scanned word list. Br J Psychol, 62, 335-346.
62. Sherbecoe, R. L., & Studebaker, G. A. (2003). Audibility-index predictions of normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners' performance on the connected speech test. Ear Hear, 24, 71-88.
63. Sumby, W. H., & Pollack, I. (1954). Visual contribution to speech intelligibility in noise. J Acoust Soc Am, 26, 212-215.
64. Surprenant, A. (1999). The effect of noise on memory for spoken syllables. Int J Psychol, 34, 328-333.
65. Tresselt, M., & Mayzner, M. (1960). A study of incidental learning. J Psychol, 50, 339-347.
66. Tun, P. A., McCoy, S., Wingfield, A. (2009). Aging, hearing acuity, and the attentional costs of effortful listening. Psychol Aging, 24, 761-766.
67. 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.
68. 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.
69. Zurek, P. M., & Delhorne, L. A. (1987). Consonant reception in noise by listeners with mild and moderate sensorineural hearing impairment. J Acoust Soc Am, 82, 1548-1559.