Measuring listening effort: Driving simulator versus simple dual-task paradigm

Ear and Hearing

Volumn 35, Issue 6, 2014, Pages 623-632

  Wu, Yu Hsiang ^a   Aksan, Nazan ^b   Rizzo, Matthew ^b   Stangl, Elizabeth ^a   Zhang, Xuyang ^a   Bentler, Ruth ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF IOWA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF IOWA   (United States)

Author keywords

Directional processing; Driving; Dual task paradigm; Hearing aid; Listening effort

Indexed keywords

AGED; AUDITORY STIMULATION; CAR DRIVING; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COMPUTER INTERFACE; FEMALE; HEARING AID; HEARING LOSS, SENSORINEURAL; HUMAN; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PATHOPHYSIOLOGY; PROCEDURES; PSYCHOLOGY; SPEECH PERCEPTION; TASK PERFORMANCE; VERY ELDERLY;

ACOUSTIC STIMULATION; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; AUTOMOBILE DRIVING; FEMALE; HEARING AIDS; HEARING LOSS, SENSORINEURAL; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; SPEECH PERCEPTION; TASK PERFORMANCE AND ANALYSIS; USER-COMPUTER INTERFACE;

EID: 84927668888     PISSN: 01960202     EISSN: 15384667     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/AUD.0000000000000079     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (44)

1. Alm, H., & Nilsson, L. (1995). The effects of a mobile telephone task on driver behaviour in a car following situation. Accid Anal Prev, 27, 707-715.
2. ANSI. (2010). Specification for Audiometers (ANSI S3.6). New York, NY: American national standards institute.
3. Bentler, R. A., Holte, L., Turner, C. (1999). An update on the acclimatization issue. Hear J, 52(11), 44-47.
4. Braitman, K. A., & McCartt, A. T. (2010). National reported patterns of driver cell phone use in the United States. Traffic Inj Prev, 11, 543-548.
5. Broughton, K. L., Switzer, F., Scott, D. (2007). Car following decisions under three visibility conditions and two speeds tested with a driving simulator. Accid Anal Prev, 39, 106-116.
6. Consiglio, W., Driscoll, P., Witte, M., et al. (2003). Effect of cellular telephone conversations and other potential interference on reaction time in a braking response. Accid Anal Prev, 35, 495-500.
7. Cox, R. M., Alexander, G. C., Gilmore, C. (1987). Development of the connected speech test (CST). Ear Hear, 8(5 Suppl), 119S-126S.
8. 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.
9. Dastrup, E., Lees, M. N., Bechara, A., et al. (2010). Risky car following in abstinent users of MDMA. Accid Anal Prev, 42, 867-873.
10. Desjardins, J. L., & Doherty, K. A. (2013). Age-related changes in listening effort for various types of masker noises. Ear Hear, 34, 261-272.
11. Desjardins, J. L., & Doherty, K. A. (2014). The effect of hearing aid noise reduction on listening effort in hearing-impaired adults. Ear Hear, 34(5), 523-534
12. Dillon, H. (1999). NAL-NL-1: a new prescriptive fitting procedure for nonlinear hearing aids. Hear J, 52, 10-16.
13. Downs, D. W. (1982). Effects of hearing and use on speech discrimination and listening effort. J Speech Hear Disord, 47, 189-193.
14. 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.
15. Gatehouse, S., & Gordon, J. (1990). Response times to speech stimuli as measures of benefit from amplification. Br J Audiol, 24, 63-68.
16. Gatehouse, S., & Noble, W. (2004). The speech, spatial and qualities of hearing scale (SSQ). Int J Audiol, 43, 85-99.
17. Gosselin, P. A., & Gagné, J. P. (2010). Use of a dual-task paradigm to measure listening effort. Can J Speech Lang Patho Audiol, 34, 43-51.
18. Gosselin, P. A., & Gagné, J. P. (2011). Older adults expend more listening effort than young adults recognizing speech in noise. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 54, 944-958.
19. 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.
20. Hick, C. B., & Tharpe, A. M. (2002). Listening effort and fatigue in schoolage children with and without hearing loss. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 45, 573-584.
21. 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.
22. 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.
23. Kiessling, J., Pichora-Fuller, M. K., Gatehouse, S., et al. (2003). Candidature for and delivery of audiological services: Special needs of older people. Int J Audiol, 42 Suppl 2, 2S92-101.
24. 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.
25. McCarley, J. S., Vais, M. J., Pringle, H., et al. (2004). Conversation disrupts change detection in complex traffic scenes. Hum Factors, 46, 424-436.
26. Morel, M., Petit, C., Bruyas, M., et al. (2005). Physiological and behavioral evaluation of mental load in shared attention tasks. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc, 5, 5526-5527.
27. Ng, E. H., Rudner, M., Lunner, T., et al. (2013). Effects of noise and working memory capacity on memory processing of speech for hearing-aid users. Int J Audiol, 52, 433-441.
28. Ni, R., Kang, J. J., Andersen, G. J. (2010). Age-related declines in car following performance under simulated fog conditions. Accident Anal Prev, 42, 818-826.
29. Pearsons, K. S., Bennett, R. L., Fidell, S. (1976). Speech levels in various environments. Report to the Office of Resources and Development, Environmental Protection Agency. BBN Report No. 3281. Cambridge, MA: Bolt, Beranek and Newman.
30. Pichora-Fuller, M. K., & Singh, G. (2006). Effects of age on auditory and cognitive processing: Implications for hearing aid fitting and audiologic rehabilitation. Trends Amplif, 10, 29-59.
31. 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.
32. Pittman, A. (2011). Children's performance in complex listening conditions: Effects of hearing loss and digital noise reduction. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 54, 1224-1239.
33. Rizzo, M. (2011). Impaired driving from medical conditions: A 70-year-old man trying to decide if he should continue driving. JAMA, 305, 1018-1026.
34. Rizzo, M., Lamers, C. T., Sauer, C. G., et al. (2005a). Impaired perception of self-motion (heading) in abstinent ecstasy and marijuana users. Psychopharmacology (Berl), 179, 559-566.
35. Rizzo, M., Shi, Q., Dawson, J. D., et al. (2005b). Stops for cops: Impaired response implementation in older drivers with cognitive decline. J Transport Res Board, 1922, 1-8.
36. 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.
37. Saunders, G. H., & Cienkowski, K. M. (1997). Acclimatization to hearing aids. Ear Hear, 18, 129-139.
38. Strayer, D. L., & Johnston, W. A. (2001). Driven to distraction: Dual-task studies of simulated driving and conversing on a cellular telephone. Psychol Sci, 12, 462-466.
39. Studebaker, G. A. (1985). A "rationalized" arcsine transform. J Speech Hear Res, 28, 455-462.
40. Worrall, L. E., & Hickson, L. (2003). Communication disability in aging from prevention to intervention. New York, NY: Thomson, Delmar Learning.
41. Wu, Y. H., & Bentler, R. A. (2012). Do older adults have social lifestyles that place fewer demands on hearing? J Am Acad Audiol, 23, 697-711.
42. Wu, Y. H., Stangl, E., Bentler, R. A. (2013a). Hearing-aid users' voices: A factor that could affect directional benefit. Int J Audiol, 52, 789-794.
43. Wu, Y. H., Stangl, E., Bentler, R. A., et al. (2013b). The effect of hearing aid technologies on listening in an automobile. J Am Acad Audiol, 24, 474-485.
44. 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.