Download PDF
J Am Acad Audiol 2018; 29(08): 734-747
DOI: 10.3766/jaaa.17024
Articles
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Listening Effort: Order Effects and Core Executive Functions

K. Jonas Brännström
*   Department of Clinical Science Lund, Logopedics, Phoniatrics and Audiology, Lund University, Lund, Sweden
,
Elisabeth Karlsson
*   Department of Clinical Science Lund, Logopedics, Phoniatrics and Audiology, Lund University, Lund, Sweden
,
Sebastian Waechter
*   Department of Clinical Science Lund, Logopedics, Phoniatrics and Audiology, Lund University, Lund, Sweden
,
Tobias Kastberg
*   Department of Clinical Science Lund, Logopedics, Phoniatrics and Audiology, Lund University, Lund, Sweden
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
29 May 2020 (online)

Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background:

Listening effort seems to depend on input-related listening demands and several factors internal to the individual listener. Input-related demands may be listening in noise compared with listening in quiet, and internal factors may be cognitive functions.

Purpose:

The purpose was to apply measures of listening effort and perceived listening effort in participants with normal hearing, to determine if there are any presentation order effects, and to explore the relationship between listening effort measured as accuracy, response times, efficiency of information encoding into long-term memory, perceived listening effort, and core executive functions.

Research Design:

A within-subject design with repeated measures was used and a study of relationships between variables was made.

Study Sample:

Thirty-two healthy adults with normal hearing.

Data Collection and Analysis:

Participants were tested individually by a listening task using a dual-task paradigm. The listening task was performed in quiet and in multitalker babble noise at 10 dB signal-to-noise ratio (SNR). Perceived listening effort and core executive functions (working memory, inhibitory control, and cognitive flexibility) were also assessed.

Results:

The measures of listening effort (correct responses, response times, and immediate and delayed listening comprehension) failed to demonstrate increased listening effort in multitalker babble noise (10 dB SNR) compared with quiet, although a significant test order effect was seen for correct responses indicating that participants who first listened in noise did not improve in quiet. Perceived listening effort increased significantly in noise compared with quiet. No relationship was found between measures of listening effort and ratings of perceived listening effort. Working memory and cognitive flexibility were not related to ratings of perceived listening effort. In contrast, better inhibitory control was related to higher ratings in both quiet and in noise.

Conclusions:

It is possible that the SNR and measures used were not as sensitive as required to measure listening effort behaviorally. In the present experimental setup, prior noise exposure impedes the beneficial effects of performing a task in quiet. Self-reports seem to provide a valid measure of perceived listening effort that is related to the individual’s inhibitory control. The present findings suggest that participants with better inhibitory control are more susceptible to the task demand level both in quiet and in noise.

Key Words

adverse listening condition - cognitive demands - response time - subjective ratings - working memory.

The authors alone are responsible for the content and writing of the article. The authors confirm this manuscript is an original contribution, not previously published, and not under consideration for publication elsewhere.


The study received approval from the regional ethics committee. The study adhered to the Declaration of Helsinki ethical principles.


 

  • REFERENCES

  • Arlinger S. 1993. Manual of Practical Audiometry. Vol. 2 London: Whurr Publishers Ltd;
    Google Scholar
  • Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y. 1995; Controlling for the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J R Soc 57: 289-300
    Google Scholar
  • Bishop D. 1997. Uncommon Understanding: Development and Disorders of Language Comprehension in Children. Hove, United Kingdom: Psychology Press;
    Google Scholar
  • Borg GA. 1982; Psychophysical bases of perceived exertion. Med Sci Sports Exerc 14 (05) 377-381
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Braver TS, Cohen JD, Nystrom LE, Jonides J, Smith EE, Noll DC. 1997; A parametric study of prefrontal cortex involvement in human working memory. Neuroimage 5 (01) 49-62
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Cohen J. 1988. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates;
    Google Scholar
  • Diamond A. 2013; Executive functions. Annu Rev Psychol 64: 135-168
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Ellis RJ, Munro KJ. 2013; Does cognitive function predict frequency compressed speech recognition in listeners with normal hearing and normal cognition?. Int J Audiol 52 (01) 14-22
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Ellis RJ, Rönnberg J. 2014; Cognition and speech-in-noise recognition: the role of proactive interference. J Am Acad Audiol 25 (10) 975-982
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Engle RW. 2002; Working memory capacity as executive function. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 11: 19-23
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Enmarker I, Boman E, Hygge S. 2006; Structural equation models of memory performance across noise conditions and age groups. Scand J Psychol 47 (06) 449-460
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Fraser S, Gagné JP, Alepins M, Dubois P. 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 (01) 18-33
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Gosselin PA, Gagné JP. 2011; Older adults expend more listening effort than young adults recognizing audiovisual speech in noise. Int J Audiol 50 (11) 786-792
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Hick CB, Tharpe AM. 2002; Listening effort and fatigue in school-age children with and without hearing loss. J Speech Lang Hear Res 45 (03) 573-584
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Houben R, van Doorn-Bierman M, Dreschler WA. 2013; Using response time to speech as a measure for listening effort. Int J Audiol 52 (11) 753-761
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Hua H, Emilsson M, Ellis R, Widén S, Möller C, Lyxell B. 2014; a Cognitive skills and the effect of noise on perceived effort in employees with aided hearing impairment and normal hearing. Noise Health 16 (69) 79-88
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Hua H, Emilsson M, Kähäri K, Widén S, Möller C, Lyxell B. 2014; b The impact of different background noises: effects on cognitive performance and perceived disturbance in employees with aided hearing impairment and normal hearing. J Am Acad Audiol 25 (09) 859-868
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Hubber PJ, Gilmore C, Cragg L. 2014; The roles of the central executive and visuospatial storage in mental arithmetic: a comparison across strategies. Q J Exp Psychol (Hove) 67 (05) 936-954
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Hygge S, Boman E, Enmarker I. 2003; The effects of road traffic noise and meaningful irrelevant speech on different memory systems. Scand J Psychol 44 (01) 13-21
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Hygge S, Evans GW, Bullinger M. 2002; A prospective study of some effects of aircraft noise on cognitive performance in schoolchildren. Psychol Sci 13 (05) 469-474
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • ISO 8253-1. (1998) ISO 8253-1. Acoustics: Audiometric Test Methods Part 1: Basic Pure-Tone Air and Bone Conduction Threshold Audiometry. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization;
  • ISO 389-8. (2004) ISO 389-8. Acoustics: Reference Zero for the Calibration of Audiometric Equipment. Part 8: Reference Equivalent Threshold Sound Pressure Levels for Pure Tones and Circumaural Earphones. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization;
  • ISO 389-5. (2006) ISO 389-5. Acoustics: Reference Zero for the Calibration of Audiometric Equipment. Part 5: Reference Equivalent Threshold Sound Ppressure Levels for Pure Tones in the Frequency Range 8 kHz to 16 kHz. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization;
  • Kahneman D. 1973. Attention and Effort. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Pretice Hall, Inc;
    Google Scholar
  • Kim YS. 2016; Direct and mediated effects of language and cognitive skills on comprehension of oral narrative texts (listening comprehension) for children. J Exp Child Psychol 141: 101-120
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Kintsch W. 1988; The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: a construction-integration model. Psychol Rev 95 (02) 163-182
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Lane H, Tranel B. 1971; The Lombard sign and the role of hearing in speech. J Speech Hear Res 14: 677-709
    Google Scholar
  • 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 (03) 131-143
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Lavie N. 2005; Distracted and confused?: selective attention under load. Trends Cogn Sci 9 (02) 75-82
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Ljung R, Kjellberg A. 2009; Long reverberation times decreases recall of spoken information. Build Acoust 16 (04) 301-311
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Lunner T, Sundewall-Thorén E. 2007; Interactions between cognition, compression, and listening conditions: effects on speech-in-noise performance in a two-channel hearing aid. J Am Acad Audiol 18 (07) 604-617
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Lyberg Åhlander V, Pelegrín García D, Whitling S, Rydell R, Löfqvist A. 2014; Teachers’ voice use in teaching environments: a field study using ambulatory phonation monitor. J Voice 28 (06) 841.e5-841.e15
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Mackersie CL, Cones H. 2011; Subjective and psychophysiological indexes of listening effort in a competing-talker task. J Am Acad Audiol 22 (02) 113-122
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Manly T, Robertson IH, Galloway M, Hawkins K. 1999; The absent mind: further investigations of sustained attention to response. Neuropsychologia 37 (06) 661-670
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Mattys SL, Davis MH, Bradlow AR, Scott SK. 2012; Speech recognition in adverse conditions: a review. Lang Cogn Process 27: 953-978
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • McGarrigle R, Munro KJ, Dawes P. 2014; Listening effort and fatigue: what exactly are we measuring? A British Society of Audiology cognition in hearing special interest group ‘white paper’. Int J Audiol 53 (07) 433-440
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Miyake A, Friedman NP, Emerson MJ, Witzki AH, Howerter A, Wager TD. 2000; The unity and diversity of executive functions and their contributions to complex “Frontal Lobe” tasks: a latent variable analysis. Cognit Psychol 41 (01) 49-100
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Nilsson L-G, Bäckman L, Erngrund K, Nyberg L, Adolfsson R, Bucht G, Karlsson S, Widing M, Winblad B. 1997; The betula prospective cohort study: memory, health, and aging. Aging Neuropsychol Cogn 4: 1-32
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Ohlenforst B, Zekveld A, Lunner T, Wendt D, Naylor G, Wang Y, Versfeld NJ, Kramer SE. 2016 Impact of stimulus-related amd listener-related factors on cognitive processing load as indicated by pupil dilatation. Conference proceedings of Hearing Across the Lifespan. Como, Italy, June 2–4, 2016
    PubMed
  • Pichora-Fuller MK, Kramer SE, Eckert MA, Edwards B, Hornsby BWY, Humes LE, Lemke U, Lunner T, Matthen M, Mackersie CL, Naylor G, Phillips NA, Richter M, Rudner M, Sommers MS, Tremblay KL, Wingfield A. 2016; Hearing impairment and cognitive energy: the framework for understanding effortful listening (FUEL). Ear Hear 37 Suppl 1 5S-27S
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Picou EM, Ricketts TA. 2014; a The effect of changing the secondary task in dual-task paradigms for measuring listening effort. Ear Hear 35 (06) 611-622
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Picou EM, Ricketts TA. 2014; b Increasing motivation changes subjective reports of listening effort and choice of coping strategy. Int J Audiol 53 (06) 418-426
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Rönnberg J, Rudner M, Foo C, Lunner T. 2008; Cognition counts: a working memory system for ease of language understanding (ELU). Int J Audiol 47 Suppl 2 S99-S105
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Rönnberg J, Rudner M, Lunner T. 2014; Comments from Dr. Jerker Rönnberg, Mary Rudner, Thomas Lunner. Int J Audiol 53 (07) 441-442 discussion 444–445. [Peer commentary on “Listening effort and fatigue: What exactly are we measuring? A British Society of Audiology Cognition in Hearing Special Interest Group ‘white paper’,” by Ronan McGarrigle, Kevin J. Munro, Piers Dawes, Andrew J. Stewart, David R. Moore, Johanna G. Barry, & Sygal Amitay].
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Rönnberg J, Rudner M, Lunner T, Zekveld AA. 2010; When cognition kicks in: working memory and speech understanding in noise. Noise Health 12 (49) 263-269
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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 (05) 1230-1240
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Stenbäck V, Hällgren M, Larsby B. 2016; Executive functions and working memory capacity in speech communication under adverse conditions. Speech Lang Hear 19: 218-226
    Google Scholar
  • Stenbäck V, Hällgren M, Lyxell B, Larsby B. 2015; The Swedish Hayling task, and its relation to working memory, verbal ability, and speech-recognition-in-noise. Scand J Psychol 56 (03) 264-272
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Sörqvist P, Halin N, Hygge S. 2010; Individual differences in susceptibility to the effects of speech on reading comprehension. Appl Cogn Psychol 24: 67-76
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Sörqvist P, Stenfelt S, Rönnberg J. 2012; Working memory capacity and visual-verbal cognitive load modulate auditory-sensory gating in the brainstem: toward a unified view of attention. J Cogn Neurosci 24 (11) 2147-2154
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar