The impact of auditory spectral resolution on listening effort revealed by pupil dilation

Ear and Hearing

Volumn 36, Issue 4, 2015, Pages e153-e165

  Winn, Matthew B ^a,b   Edwards, Jan R ^a,c   Litovsky, Ruth Y ^a,b,c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN SCHOOL OF MEDICINE AND PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON   (United States)

Author keywords

Cochlear implant; Listening effort; Pupil dilation; Pupillometry; Spectral degradation; Spectral resolution; Vocoder

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AUDITORY STIMULATION; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; NOISE; PHYSIOLOGY; PUPIL; SPEECH DISCRIMINATION TEST; SPEECH PERCEPTION; YOUNG ADULT;

ACOUSTIC STIMULATION; ADOLESCENT; ADULT; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; NOISE; PUPIL; SPEECH DISCRIMINATION TESTS; SPEECH PERCEPTION; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84936985456     PISSN: 01960202     EISSN: 15384667     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/AUD.0000000000000145     Document Type: Article

References (88)

1. Abbas, P. J., Hughes, M. L., Brown, C. J., et al. (2004). Channel interaction in cochlear implant users evaluated using the electrically evoked compound action potential. Audiol Neurootol, 9, 203-213.
2. Ahern, S. (1978). Activation and intelligence: Pupillometric correlates of individual differences in cognitive abilities. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. University of California, Los Angeles, CA.
3. Ahern, S., & Beatty, J. (1979). Pupillary responses during information processing vary with Scholastic Aptitude Test scores. Science, 205, 1289-1292.
4. Anderson, E., Oxenham, A., Kreft, H., et al. (2011). Comparing spectral tuning curves, spectral ripple resolution, and speech perception in cochlear implant users. J Acoust Soc Am, 133, 364-375.
5. Barr, D. (2008) Analyzing "visual world" eyetracking data using multilevel logistic regression. J Mem Lang, 59, 457-474
6. Bakent, D., & Shannon, R. V. (2005). Interactions between cochlear implant electrode insertion depth and frequency-place mapping. J Acoust Soc Am, 117(3 Pt 1), 1405-1416.
7. Beatty, J. (1982). Task-evoked pupillary responses, processing load, and the structure of processing resources. Psychol Bull, 91, 276-292.
8. Bierer, J. A. (2007). Threshold and channel interaction in cochlear implant users: Evaluation of the tripolar electrode configuration. J Acoust Soc Am, 121, 1642-1653.
9. Bierer, J. A., Bierer, S. M., Middlebrooks, J. C. (2010). Partial tripolar cochlear implant stimulation: Spread of excitation and forward masking in the inferior colliculus. Hear Res, 270, 134-142.
10. Bingabr, M., Espinoza-Varas, B., Loizou, P. C. (2008). Simulating the effect of spread of excitation in cochlear implants. Hear Res, 241, 73-79.
11. Boersma, P., & Weenink, D. (2013). Praat: doing phonetics by computer [Computer program]. Version 5.3.56. Retrieved September 15, 2013, from http://www.praat.org/.
12. Boëx, C., de Balthasar, C., Kós, M. I., et al. (2003). Electrical field interactions in different cochlear implant systems. J Acoust Soc Am, 114(4 Pt 1), 2049-2057.
13. Chapman, C. R., Oka, S., Bradshaw, D. H., et al. (1999). Phasic pupil dilation response to noxious stimulation in normal volunteers: Relationship to brain evoked potentials and pain report. Psychophysiology, 36, 44-52.
14. Chatterjee, M. (1999). Effects of stimulation mode on threshold and loudness growth in multielectrode cochlear implants. J Acoust Soc Am, 105(2 Pt 1), 850-860.
15. Chatterjee, M., & Shannon, R. (1998). Forward masked excitation patterns in multielectrode cochlear implants. J Acoust Soc Am, 103, 2565-2572.
16. Cohen, L. T., Richardson, L. M., Saunders, E., et al. (2003). Spatial spread of neural excitation in cochlear implant recipients: Comparison of improved ECAP method and psychophysical forward masking. Hear Res, 179, 72-87.
17. Danermark, B., & Gellerstedt, L. C. (2004). Psychosocial work environment, hearing impairment and health. Int J Audiol, 43, 383-389.
18. Demorest, M. E., & Erdman, S. A. (1987). Development of the communication profile for the hearing impaired. J Speech Hear Disord, 52, 129-143.
19. Donaldson, G. S., & Nelson, D. A. (2000). Place-pitch sensitivity and its relation to consonant recognition by cochlear implant listeners using the MPEAK and SPEAK speech processing strategies. J Acoust Soc Am, 107, 1645-1658.
20. Dubno, J. R., Dirks, D. D., Langhofer, L. R. (1982). Evaluation of hearingimpaired listeners using a Nonsense-syllable Test. II. Syllable recognition and consonant confusion patterns. J Speech Hear Res, 25, 141-148.
21. Edwards, B. (2007). The future of hearing aid technology. Trends Ampl, 11, 31-46.
22. Feuerstein, J. F. (1992). Monaural versus binaural hearing: Ease of listening, word recognition, and attentional effort. Ear Hear, 13, 80-86.
23. Fitzgerald, M. B., Sagi, E., Morbiwala, T. A., et al. (2013). Feasibility of real-time selection of frequency tables in an acoustic simulation of a cochlear implant. Ear Hear, 34, 763-772.
24. Fourakis, M. S., Hawks, J. W., Holden, L. K., et al. (2004). Effect of frequency boundary assignment on vowel recognition with the Nucleus 24 ACE speech coding strategy. J Am Acad Audiol, 15, 281-299.
25. Friesen, L. M., Shannon, R. V., Baskent, D., et al. (2001). Speech recognition in noise as a function of the number of spectral channels: Comparison of acoustic hearing and cochlear implants. J Acoust Soc Am, 110, 1150-1163.
26. Fu, Q.-J. (2013) AngelSim: Cochlear implant and hearing loss simulator [Computer program]. Version 1.07.01. Retrieved April 15, 2013, from http://www.tigerspeech.com/angelsim/angelsim-about.html.
27. Fu, Q.-J., & Nogaki, G. (2005). Noise susceptibility of cochlear implant users: The role of spectral resolution and smearing. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol, 6, 19-27.
28. Gao, X., Stine-Morrow, E. A., Noh, S. R., et al. (2011). Visual noise disrupts conceptual integration in reading. Psychon Bull Rev, 18, 83-88.
29. Glasberg, B. R., & Moore, B. C. (1986). Auditory filter shapes in subjects with unilateral and bilateral cochlear impairments. J Acoust Soc Am, 79, 1020-1033.
30. Greenwood, D. D. (1990). A cochlear frequency-position function for several species-29 years later. J Acoust Soc Am, 87, 2592-2605.
31. Grimby, A., & Ringdahl, A. (2000). Does having a job improve the quality of life among post-lingually deafened Swedish adults with severeprofound hearing impairment Br J Audiol, 34, 187-195.
32. Henry, B. A., Turner, C. W., Behrens, A. (2005). Spectral peak resolution and speech recognition in quiet: Normal hearing, hearing impaired, and cochlear implant listeners. J Acoust Soc Am, 118, 1111-1121.
33. Hillyard, S. A., Hink, R. F., Schwent, V. L., et al. (1973). Electrical signs of selective attention in the human brain. Science, 182, 177-180.
34. Höfle, M., Kenntner-Mabiala, R., Pauli, P., et al. (2008). You can see pain in the eye: Pupillometry as an index of pain intensity under different luminance conditions. Int J Psychophysiol, 70, 171-175.
35. Hutchinson, J., Sherman, T., Martinovic, N. (2008). The effect of manipulated self-efficacy on perceived and sustained effort. J Appl Sport Psych, 20, 457-472.
36. Järvelin, M. R., Mäki-Torkko, E., Sorri, M. J., et al. (1997). Effect of hearing impairment on educational outcomes and employment up to the age of 25 years in northern Finland. Br J Audiol, 31, 165-175.
37. Jethanamest, D., Tan, C. T., Fitzgerald, M. B., et al. (2010). A new software tool to optimize frequency table selection for cochlear implants. Otol Neurotol, 31, 1242-1247.
38. Jones, G., Won, J. H., Drennan, W., et al. (2013). Relationship between channel interaction and spectral-ripple discrimination in cochlear implant users. J Acoust Soc Am, 133, 425-433.
39. Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1993). The intensity dimension of thought: Pupillometric indices of sentence processing. Can J Exp Psychol, 47, 310-339.
40. Kahneman, D. (1973). Attention and Effort. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
41. Kahneman, D., & Beatty, J. (1966). Pupil diameter and load on memory. Science, 154, 1583-1585.
42. Kahneman, D., Beatty, J., Pollack, I. (1967). Perceptual deficit during a mental task. Science, 157, 218-219.
43. Kahneman, D., Onuska, L., Wolman, R. E. (1968). Effects of grouping on the pupillary response in a short-term memory task. Q J Exp Psychol, 20, 309-311.
44. Killion, M. C., Niquette, P. A., Gudmundsen, G. I., et al. (2004). Development of a quick speech-in-noise test for measuring signal-to-noise ratio loss in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am, 116(4 Pt 1), 2395-2405.
45. Koelewijn, T., Zekveld, A. A., Festen, J. M., et al. (2012). Pupil dilation uncovers extra listening effort in the presence of a single-talker masker. Ear Hear, 33, 291-300.
46. Kramer, S., Kapteyn, T., Festen, J., et al. (1997). Assessing aspect of hearing handicap by means of pupil dilation. Audiology, 36, 155-164.
47. 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.
48. 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.
49. Laeng, B., & Falkenberg, L. (2007). Women's pupillary responses to sexually significant others during the hormonal cycle. Horm Behav, 52, 520-530.
50. Landsberger, D. M., Padilla, M., Srinivasan, A. G. (2012). Reducing current spread using current focusing in cochlear implant users. Hear Res, 284, 16-24.
51. Litovsky, R., Parkinson, A., Arcaroli, J., et al. (2006). Simultaneous bilateral cochlear implantation in adults: A multicenter clinical study. Ear Hear, 27, 714-731.
52. Litvak, L. M., Spahr, A. J., Saoji, A. A., et al. (2007). Relationship between perception of spectral ripple and speech recognition in cochlear implant and vocoder listeners. J Acoust Soc Am, 122, 982-991.
53. Mens, L. H., & Berenstein, C. K. (2005). Speech perception with monoand quadrupolar electrode configurations: A crossover study. Otol Neurotol, 26, 957-964.
54. Mirman, D. (2014). Growth Curve Analysis and Visualization Using R. New York, NY: CRC Press.
55. Mirman, D., Dixon, J. A., Magnuson, J. S. (2008). Statistical and computational models of the visual world paradigm: Growth curves and individual differences. J Mem Lang, 59, 475-494.
56. Munson, B., Donaldson, G., Allen, S., et al. (2003). Patterns of phoneme misperceptions by individual with cochlear implants. J Acoust Soc Am, 113, 925-935.
57. 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.
58. Nadol, J. B., Jr. (1997). Patterns of neural degeneration in the human cochlea and auditory nerve: Implications for cochlear implantation. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg, 117(3 Pt 1), 220-228.
59. Nelson, D., Van Tasell, D., Schroder, A., et al. (1995). Electrode ranking of "place-pitch" and speech recognition in electrical hearing. J Acoust Soc Am, 98, 1987-1999.
60. Pals, C., Sarampalis, A., Baskent, D. (2013). Listening effort with cochlear implant simulations. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 56, 1075-1084.
61. Partala, T., & Surakka, V. (2003). Pupil size variation as an indication of affective processing. Int J Hum-Comp Stud, 59, 185-198.
62. Parving, A., & Christensen, B. (1993). Training and employment in hearing-impaired subjects at 20-35 years of age. Scand Audiol, 22, 133-139.
63. Peavler, W. (1974). Individual differences in pupil size and performance. In M. Janisse (Ed.), Pupillary Dynamics and Behavior (pp. 159-175). New York, NY: Plenum Press.
64. Picou, E. M., Ricketts, T. A., Hornsby, B. W. (2011). Visual cues and listening effort: Individual variability. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 54, 1416-1430.
65. Polt, J. M. (1970). Effect of threat of shock on pupillary response in a problem-solving situation. Percept Mot Skills, 31, 587-593.
66. Quentin Summerfield, A., Barton, G. R., Toner, J., et al. (2006). Selfreported benefits from successive bilateral cochlear implantation in post-lingually deafened adults: Randomised controlled trial. Int J Audiol, 45(Suppl 1), S99-S107.
67. 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.
68. Recarte, M. A., Pérez, E., Conchillo, A., et al. (2008). Mental workload and visual impairment: Differences between pupil, blink, and subjective rating. Span J Psychol, 11, 374-385.
69. Saoji, A. A., Litvak, L. M., Hughes, M. L. (2009). Excitation patterns of simultaneous and sequential dual-electrode stimulation in cochlear implant recipients. Ear Hear, 30, 559-567.
70. 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.
71. Schluroff, M. (1983). In the eye of the beholder: Cognitive effort during sentence processing. In R. Bauërle, Ch. Schwarze, A. von Stechow (Eds.), Meaning, Use, and Interpretation of Language (pp. 302-323). New York, NY: de Gruyter.
72. Shannon, R., Fu, Q.-J., Galvin, J. (2004) The number of spectral channels required for speech recognition depends on the difficulty of the listening situation. Acta Oto-Laryngologica Suppl, 552, 50-54.
73. Shannon, R. V., Zeng, F. G., Kamath, V., et al. (1995). Speech recognition with primarily temporal cues. Science, 270, 303-304.
74. Siegle, G. J., Ichikawa, N., Steinhauer, S. (2008). Blink before and after you think: Blinks occur prior to and following cognitive load indexed by pupillary responses. Psychophysiology, 45, 679-687.
75. Spellman, B. A., Price, C. M., Logan, J. M. (2001). How two causes are different from one: The use of (un)conditional information in Simpson's paradox. Mem Cognit, 29, 193-208.
76. Srinivasan, A. G., Landsberger, D. M., Shannon, R. V. (2010). Current focusing sharpens local peaks of excitation in cochlear implant stimulation. Hear Res, 270, 89-100.
77. Stafford, R., Stafford, J., Wells, J., et al. (2013). Vocoder simulations of highly focused cochlear implant stimulation with limited dynamic range and discriminable steps. Ear Hear, 35, 262-270.
78. Stickney, G., Loizou, P., Mishra, L., et al. (2006). Effects of electrode design and configuration on channel interactions. Hear Res, 211, 33-45.
79. Wackym, P. A., Runge-Samuelson, C. L., Firszt, J. B., et al. (2007). More challenging speech-perception tasks demonstrate binaural benefit in bilateral cochlear implant users. Ear Hear, 28(2 Suppl), 80S-85S.
80. Winn, B., Whitaker, D., Elliott, D. B., et al. (1994). Factors affecting lightadapted pupil size in normal human subjects. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci, 35, 1132-1137.
81. Won, J. H., Drennan, W. R., Rubinstein, J. T. (2007). Spectral-ripple resolution correlates with speech reception in noise in cochlear implant users. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol, 8, 384-392.
82. Xu, L., Thompson, C. S., Pfingst, B. E. (2005). Relative contributions of spectral and temporal cues for phoneme recognition. J Acoust Soc Am, 117, 3255-3267.
83. Zekveld, A. A., Festen, J., Kramer, S. (2013). Task difficulty affects two measures of processing load: The pupil response during sentence processing and delayed cued recall of the sentences. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 56, 1156-1165.
84. Zekveld, A. A., Heslenfeld, D. J., Johnsrude, I. S., et al. (2014). The eye as a window to the listening brain: Neural correlates of pupil size as a measure of cognitive listening load. Neuroimage, 101, 76-86.
85. Zekveld, A. A., & Kramer, S. E. (2014). Cognitive processing load across a wide range of listening conditions: Insights from pupillometry. Psychophysiology, 51, 277-284.
86. 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.
87. 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.
88. Zhu, Z., Tang, Q., Zeng, F. G., et al. (2012). Cochlear-implant spatial selectivity with monopolar, bipolar and tripolar stimulation. Hear Res, 283, 45-58.