Download PDF
Semin Hear 2023; 44(02): 155-165
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-1766140
Review Article

Dual-Task Paradigm Measures of Listening Effort: To Include or Not to Include Secondary Task Responses with Incorrect Primary Task Responses

Haiping Huang
1   Department of Hearing and Speech Sciences, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee
,
Ilze Oosthuizen
2   Department of Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa
3   Virtual Hearing Lab, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado
,
Erin M. Picou
1   Department of Hearing and Speech Sciences, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee
4   Department of Hearing and Speech Sciences, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Response time–based dual-task paradigms are commonly adopted to measure behavioral listening effort. Most extant studies used an all-response approach that included secondary task responses under both correct and incorrect primary task responses during analysis. However, evidence supporting this strategy is limited. Therefore, the current study investigated the potential differences between including all responses versus only including correct responses. Data from two previous studies were reanalyzed. Experiment 1 included 16 listeners and used a dual-task paradigm to examine the effect of introducing background noise on listening effort. Experiment 2 included 19 participants and used a different dual-task paradigm to examine the effect of reverberation and loudspeaker-to-listener distance on listening effort. ANOVA results obtained using both analysis approaches were compared. The all-response and correct-only approaches revealed similar results. However, larger effect sizes and an additional main effect were found with the all-response approach. The current study supports the use of an all-response approach due to its greater sensitivity to changes in behavioral listening effort. However, a correct-only approach could be utilized to suit specific study purposes.

Keywords

listening effort - dual-task paradigm


Publication History

Article published online:
28 March 2023

© 2023. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Pichora-Fuller MK, Kramer SE, Eckert MA. et al. Hearing impairment and cognitive energy: the framework for understanding effortful listening (FUEL). Ear Hear 2016; 37 (Suppl. 01) 5S-27S
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Picou EM, Ricketts TA, Hornsby BWY. How hearing aids, background noise, and visual cues influence objective listening effort. Ear Hear 2013; 34 (05) e52-e64
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Sarampalis A, Kalluri S, Edwards B, Hafter E. Objective measures of listening effort: effects of background noise and noise reduction. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2009; 52 (05) 1230-1240
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Ohlenforst B, Wendt D, Kramer SE, Naylor G, Zekveld AA, Lunner T. Impact of SNR, masker type and noise reduction processing on sentence recognition performance and listening effort as indicated by the pupil dilation response. Hear Res 2018; 365: 90-99
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Prodi N, Visentin C. Impact of background noise fluctuation and reverberation on response time in a speech reception task. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2019; 62 (11) 4179-4195
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Picou EM, Gordon J, Ricketts TA. The effects of noise and reverberation on listening effort in adults with normal hearing. Ear Hear 2016; 37 (01) 1-13
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Peng ZE, Wang LM. Listening effort by native and nonnative listeners due to noise, reverberation, and talker foreign accent during English speech perception. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2019; 62 (04) 1068-1081
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Sato H, Morimoto M, Wada M. Relationship between listening difficulty rating and objective measures in reverberant and noisy sound fields for young adults and elderly persons. J Acoust Soc Am 2012; 131 (06) 4596-4605
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Van Engen KJ, Peelle JE. Listening effort and accented speech. Front Hum Neurosci 2014; 8: 577
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Hornsby BWY. The effects of hearing aid use on listening effort and mental fatigue associated with sustained speech processing demands. Ear Hear 2013; 34 (05) 523-534
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Wang Y, Naylor G, Kramer SE. et al. Relations between self-reported daily-life fatigue, hearing status, and pupil dilation during a speech perception in noise task. Ear Hear 2018; 39 (03) 573-582
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Kramer SE, Kapteyn TS, Houtgast T. Occupational performance: comparing normally-hearing and hearing-impaired employees using the Amsterdam Checklist for Hearing and Work. Int J Audiol 2006; 45 (09) 503-512
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Strand JF, Brown VA, Merchant MB, Brown HE, Smith J. Measuring listening effort: convergent validity, sensitivity, and links with cognitive and personality measures. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2018; 61 (06) 1463-1486
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 McGarrigle R, Munro KJ, Dawes P. et al. 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 2014; 53 (07) 433-440
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Alhanbali S, Dawes P, Millman RE, Munro KJ. Measures of listening effort are multidimensional. Ear Hear 2019; 40 (05) 1084-1097
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Gagné J-P, Besser J, Lemke U. Behavioral assessment of listening effort using a dual-task paradigm: a review. Trends Hear 2017; 21: 2331216516687287
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Kahneman D. Attention and Effort. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall; 1973
    Google Scholar
  • 18 Picou EM, Ricketts TA. The effect of changing the secondary task in dual-task paradigms for measuring listening effort. Ear Hear 2014; 35 (06) 611-622
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Baer T, Moore BC, Gatehouse S. Spectral contrast enhancement of speech in noise for listeners with sensorineural hearing impairment: effects on intelligibility, quality, and response times. J Rehabil Res Dev 1993; 30 (01) 49-72
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Hick CB, Tharpe AM. Listening effort and fatigue in school-age children with and without hearing loss. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2002; 45 (03) 573-584
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Fisk AD, Derrick WL, Schneider W. A methodological assessment and evaluation of dual-task paradigms. Curr Psychol Res Rev 1986; 5 (04) 315-327
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Watter S, Logan GD. Parallel response selection in dual-task situations. Percept Psychophys 2006; 68 (02) 254-277
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Yamaguchi M, Logan GD, Bissett PG. Stopping while going! Response inhibition does not suffer dual-task interference. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 2012; 38 (01) 123-134
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Wu Y-H, Stangl E, Zhang X, Perkins J, Eilers E. Psychometric functions of dual-task paradigms for measuring listening effort. Ear Hear 2016; 37 (06) 660-670
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Wu Y-H, Aksan N, Rizzo M, Stangl E, Zhang X, Bentler R. Measuring listening effort: driving simulator versus simple dual-task paradigm. Ear Hear 2014; 35 (06) 623-632
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Picou EM, Charles LM, Ricketts TA. Child–adult differences in using dual-task paradigms to measure listening effort. Am J Audiol 2017; 26 (02) 143-154
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Rönnberg J, Lunner T, Zekveld A. et al. The Ease of Language Understanding (ELU) model: theoretical, empirical, and clinical advances. Front Syst Neurosci 2013; 7: 31
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Hsu BC-L, Vanpoucke F, van Wieringen A. Listening effort through depth of processing in school-age children. Ear Hear 2017; 38 (05) 568-576
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 McGarrigle R, Gustafson SJ, Hornsby BWY, Bess FH. Behavioral measures of listening effort in school-age children: Examining the effects of signal-to-noise ratio, hearing loss, and amplification. Ear Hear 2019; 40 (02) 381-392
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Huang H, Ricketts TA, Hornsby BWY, Picou EM. Effects of critical distance and reverberation on listening effort in adults. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2022; 65 (12) 4837-4851
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Picou EM, Ricketts TA, Hornsby BWY. Visual cues and listening effort: individual variability. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2011; 54 (05) 1416-1430
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Cox RM, Alexander GC, Gilmore C. Development of the connected speech test (CST). Ear Hear 1987; 8 (5, Suppl): 119S-126S
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Cox RM, Alexander GC, Gilmore C, Pusakulich KM. Use of the connected speech test (CST) with hearing-impaired listeners. Ear Hear 1988; 9 (04) 198-207
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Etymotic R. Bamford-Kowal-Bench Speech-in-Noise Test (Version 1.3) Manual, [Audio CD]. Elk Grove Village, IL: Etymotic Research; 2005
    Google Scholar
  • 35 Peutz V. Articulation loss of consonants as a criterion for speech transmission in a room. J Audio Eng Soc 1971; 19 (11) 915-919
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Lemke U, Besser J. Cognitive load and listening effort: concepts and age-related considerations. Ear Hear 2016; 37 (Suppl. 01) 77S-84S
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Brysbaert M, Stevens M. Power analysis and effect size in mixed effects models: a tutorial. J Cogn 2018; 1 (01) 9
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Seeman S, Sims R. Comparison of psychophysiological and dual-task measures of listening effort. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2015; 58 (06) 1781-1792
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar