20
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Moderate Reverberation Does Not Increase Subjective Fatigue, Subjective Listening Effort, or Behavioral Listening Effort in School-Aged Children

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background noise and reverberation levels in typical classrooms have negative effects on speech recognition, but their effects on listening effort and fatigue are less well understood. Based on the Framework for Understanding Effortful Listening, noise and reverberation would be expected to increase both listening effort and fatigue. However, previous investigations of the effects of reverberation for adults have resulted in mixed findings. Some discrepancies in the literature might be accounted for by methodological differences; behavioral and subjective indices of listening effort do not often align in adults. The effects of sustained listening on self-reported fatigue in school-aged children are also not well understood. The purposes of this project were to (1) evaluate the effects of noise and reverberation on listening effort in school-aged children using behavioral and subjective measures, (2) compare subjective and behavioral indices of listening effort, and (3) evaluate the effects of reverberation on self-reported fatigue. Twenty typically developing children (10–17 years old) participated. Participants completed dual-task testing in two rooms that varied in terms of reverberation, an audiometric sound booth and a moderately reverberant room. In each room, testing was completed in quiet and in two levels of background noise. Participants provided subjective ratings of listening effort after completing the dual-task in each listening condition. Subjective ratings of fatigue were completed before and after testing in each level of reverberation. Results revealed background noise, not reverberation, increased behavioral and subjective listening effort. Subjective ratings of perceived performance, ease of listening, and desire to control the listening situation revealed a similar pattern of results as word recognition performance, making them poor candidates for providing an indication of behavioral listening effort. However, ratings of time perception were moderately correlated with behavioral listening effort. Finally, sustained listening for approximately 25 min increased self-reported fatigue, although changes in fatigue were comparable in low and moderately reverberant environments. In total, these data offer no evidence that a moderate level of reverberation increases listening effort or fatigue, but the data do support the reduction of background noise in classrooms.

          Related collections

          Most cited references73

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Book Chapter: not found

          Representativeness Revisited: Attribute Substitution in Intuitive Judgment

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Cognition counts: a working memory system for ease of language understanding (ELU).

            A general working memory system for ease of language understanding (ELU, Rönnberg, 2003a) is presented. The purpose of the system is to describe and predict the dynamic interplay between explicit and implicit cognitive functions, especially in conditions of poorly perceived or poorly specified linguistic signals. In relation to speech understanding, the system based on (1) the quality and precision of phonological representations in long-term memory, (2) phonologically mediated lexical access speed, and (3) explicit, storage, and processing resources. If there is a mismatch between phonological information extracted from the speech signal and the phonological information represented in long-term memory, the system is assumed to produce a mismatch signal that invokes explicit processing resources. In the present paper, we focus on four aspects of the model which have led to the current, updated version: the language generality assumption; the mismatch assumption; chronological age; and the episodic buffer function of rapid, automatic multimodal binding of phonology (RAMBPHO). We evaluate the language generality assumption in relation to sign language and speech, and the mismatch assumption in relation to signal processing in hearing aids. Further, we discuss the effects of chronological age and the implications of RAMBPHO.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Pupil response as an indication of effortful listening: the influence of sentence intelligibility.

              The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of sentence intelligibility on the pupil dilation response during listening. Task-induced pupil-dilation reflects explicit effortful processing load. Therefore, pupillometry can be used to examine the listening effort during speech perception in difficult listening conditions. We expected to find increasing pupil dilation as a function of decreasing speech intelligibility. Thirty-eight young participants (mean age = 23 yrs, SD = 3.2 yrs) with normal hearing were included. They performed three speech reception threshold (SRT) tests in which they listened to sentences in stationary noise. A one-up-one-down, two-up-one-down, or four-up-one-down adaptive procedure was applied, resulting in the correct rehearsal of 50, 71, or 84% of the sentences (SRT(50%), SRT(71%), and SRT(84%), respectively). We examined the peak dilation amplitude, the latency of the peak dilation amplitude, and the mean pupil dilation during the processing of the speech in each of these conditions. The peak dilation amplitude and mean pupil dilation were calculated relative to the baseline pupil diameter during listening to noise alone. For each SRT condition, participants rated the experienced listening effort and estimated their performance level. The signal to noise ratios (SNRs) in the SRT(50%), SRT(71%), and SRT(84%) conditions increased as a function of the speech intelligibility level. The subjective effort ratings decreased, and the estimated performance increased with increasing speech intelligibility level. Repeated measures analyses of variance indicated that peak dilation amplitude and mean pupil dilation were higher in the SRT(50%) condition as compared with the SRT(71%) and SRT(84%) conditions. The peak dilation amplitude, mean pupil dilation, and peak latency increased with decreasing SNR of the speech in noise, but no effect of noise level by itself on the baseline pupil diameter was observed. Irrespective of SNR, the pupil response was higher for incorrectly repeated sentences than for correctly repeated sentences. The analyses also indicated condition-order effects on the peak dilation amplitude and mean pupil dilatation: the pupil response was higher in the first SRT test than in the second and third tests. Within the first and third test, the baseline pupil diameter and the mean pupil dilation decreased as a function of the sentence number within the test. Spearman correlation coefficients showed no relations among the SNRs at the SRTs, subjective ratings, and the pupil response. The peak dilation amplitude, peak latency, and mean pupil dilation systematically increase with decreasing speech intelligibility. These results support that listening effort, as indicated by the pupil response, increases with decreasing speech intelligibility. This study indicates that pupillometry can be used to examine how listeners reach a certain performance level. Application of this technique to study listening effort can yield valuable insight into the processing resources required across listening conditions and into the factors related to interindividual differences in speech perception in noise.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Front Psychol
                Front Psychol
                Front. Psychol.
                Frontiers in Psychology
                Frontiers Media S.A.
                1664-1078
                02 August 2019
                2019
                : 10
                : 1749
                Affiliations
                [1] 1Hearing and Affect Perception Interest Laboratory, Department of Hearing and Speech Sciences , Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, United States
                [2] 2Dan Maddox Hearing Aid Research Laboratory, Department of Hearing and Speech Sciences , Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, United States
                [3] 3Department of Otolaryngology , University Hospital Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany
                [4] 4Hearing and Communication Laboratory, Department of Hearing and Speech Sciences , Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, United States
                Author notes

                Edited by: K. Jonas Brännström, Lund University, Sweden

                Reviewed by: Adriana A. Zekveld, VU University Medical Center Amsterdam, Netherlands; Ryan William McCreery, Boys Town National Research Hospital, United States; Alexander Francis, Purdue University, United States

                *Correspondence: Erin M. Picou, erin.picou@ 123456vanderbilt.edu

                This article was submitted to Auditory Cognitive Neuroscience, a section of the journal Frontiers in Psychology

                Article
                10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01749
                6688555
                c18fcf88-cdd1-4a1a-b471-e26f03f04582
                Copyright © 2019 Picou, Bean, Marcrum, Ricketts and Hornsby.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

                History
                : 30 April 2019
                : 15 July 2019
                Page count
                Figures: 4, Tables: 3, Equations: 1, References: 90, Pages: 16, Words: 0
                Funding
                Funded by: Phonak 10.13039/501100004228
                Categories
                Psychology
                Original Research

                Clinical Psychology & Psychiatry
                children,classrooms,background noise,listening effort,subjective ratings,reverberation,speech recognition

                Comments

                Comment on this article