Pupil Response as an Indication of Effortful Listening: The Influence of Sentence Intelligibility

Objectives: 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. Design: 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 (SRT50%, SRT71%, and SRT84%, 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. Results: The signal to noise ratios (SNRs) in the SRT50%, SRT71%, and SRT84% 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 SRT50% condition as compared with the SRT71% and SRT84% 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. Conclusions: 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.

[1]  D Kahneman,et al.  Pupil Diameter and Load on Memory , 1966, Science.

[2]  Jum C. Nunnally,et al.  Pupillary response as a general measure of activation , 1967 .

[3]  R M Burde,et al.  THE PUPIL , 1967, International ophthalmology clinics.

[4]  P. Rabbitt,et al.  Channel-Capacity, Intelligibility and Immediate Memory , 1968, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[5]  D. Kahneman,et al.  Pupillary, heart rate, and skin resistance changes during a mental task. , 1969, Journal of experimental psychology.

[6]  F. Boersma,et al.  Effects of arithmetic problem difficulty on pupillary dilation in normals and educable retardates. , 1970, Journal of experimental child psychology.

[7]  D. Kahneman,et al.  Evidence for Alternative Strategies of Sentence Retention , 1971, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[8]  P Wright,et al.  Changes of Pupil Size and Rehearsal Strategies in a Short-Term Memory Task , 1971, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[9]  H. Levitt Transformed up-down methods in psychoacoustics. , 1971, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[10]  R. F. Stanners,et al.  The pupillary response to sentences: Influences of listening set and deep structure , 1972 .

[11]  G K Poock,et al.  Information processing vs pupil diameter. , 1973, Perceptual and motor skills.

[12]  J. Beatty,et al.  Pupillometric signs of brain activation vary with level of cognitive processing. , 1978, Science.

[13]  E. Hess,et al.  Pupillometry: The Psychology of the Pupillary Response , 1978 .

[14]  A. M. Mimpen,et al.  Improving the reliability of testing the speech reception threshold for sentences. , 1979, Audiology : official organ of the International Society of Audiology.

[15]  J. Beatty,et al.  Pupillary responses during information processing vary with Scholastic Aptitude Test scores. , 1979, Science.

[16]  Robert F. Stanners,et al.  The pupillary response as an indicator of arousal and cognition , 1979 .

[17]  J. Beatty Task-evoked pupillary responses, processing load, and the structure of processing resources. , 1982, Psychological bulletin.

[18]  J. Antikainen,et al.  Neuroticism and the pupillary response to a brief exposure to noise , 1983, Biological Psychology.

[19]  In the Eye of the Beholder: Cognitive Effort During Sentence Processing , 1983 .

[20]  J. G. Hollands,et al.  Engineering Psychology and Human Performance , 1984 .

[21]  J. Beatty,et al.  Pupillary dilations in movement preparation and execution. , 1985, Psychophysiology.

[22]  R. Plomp A signal-to-noise ratio model for the speech-reception threshold of the hearing impaired. , 1986, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[23]  C. Wickens,et al.  Dissociation of Performance and Subjective Measures of Workload , 1988 .

[24]  P. Rabbitt Mild hearing loss can cause apparent memory failures which increase with age and reduce with IQ. , 1990, Acta oto-laryngologica. Supplementum.

[25]  M. Just,et al.  From the SelectedWorks of Marcel Adam Just 1992 A capacity theory of comprehension : Individual differences in working memory , 2017 .

[26]  S. Steinhauer,et al.  The Pupillary Response in Cognitive Psychophysiology and Schizophrenia a , 1992, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

[27]  Rapid speech processing and divided attention: processing rate versus processing resources as an explanation of age effects. , 1992, Psychology and aging.

[28]  M. Just,et al.  The intensity dimension of thought: pupillometric indices of sentence processing. , 1993, Canadian journal of experimental psychology = Revue canadienne de psychologie experimentale.

[29]  J Hyönä,et al.  Pupil Dilation as a Measure of Processing Load in Simultaneous Interpretation and Other Language Tasks , 1995, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[30]  M. Daneman,et al.  How young and old adults listen to and remember speech in noise. , 1995, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[31]  E. Granholm,et al.  Pupillary responses index cognitive resource limitations. , 1996, Psychophysiology.

[32]  P F Seitz,et al.  Assessing the Cognitive Demands of Speech Listening for People with Hearing Losses , 1996, Ear and hearing.

[33]  J M Festen,et al.  Assessing aspects of auditory handicap by means of pupil dilatation. , 1997, Audiology : official organ of the International Society of Audiology.

[34]  C. Chapman,et al.  Phasic pupil dilation response to noxious stimulation in normal volunteers: relationship to brain evoked potentials and pain report. , 1999, Psychophysiology.

[35]  E. Granholm,et al.  Accelerated age-related decline in processing resources in schizophrenia: Evidence from pupillary responses recorded during the span of apprehension task , 2000, Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society.

[36]  T Houtgast,et al.  Method for the selection of sentence materials for efficient measurement of the speech reception threshold. , 1999, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[37]  J. Beatty,et al.  The pupillary system. , 2000 .

[38]  E. Granholm,et al.  Pupillary responses and processing resources on the visual backward masking task. , 2001, Psychophysiology.

[39]  J. Rönnberg Cognition in the hearing impaired and deaf as a bridge between signal and dialogue: a framework and a model , 2003, International journal of audiology.

[40]  M. Just,et al.  Neuroindices of cognitive workload: Neuroimaging, pupillometric and event-related potential studies of brain work , 2003 .

[41]  M. K. Pickora-Fuller Processing speed and timing in aging adults: psychoacoustics, speech perception, and comprehension. , 2003, International journal of audiology.

[42]  S. Scott,et al.  The neuroanatomical and functional organization of speech perception , 2003, Trends in Neurosciences.

[43]  Phillip D. Tomporowski PERFORMANCE AND PERCEPTIONS OF WORKLOAD AMONG YOUNG AND OLDER ADULTS: EFFECTS OF PRACTICE DURING COGNITIVELY DEMANDING TASKS , 2003 .

[44]  Matthew H. Davis,et al.  Hierarchical Processing in Spoken Language Comprehension , 2003, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[45]  Greg J Siegle,et al.  Use of concurrent pupil dilation assessment to inform interpretation and analysis of fMRI data , 2003, NeuroImage.

[46]  E. Granholm,et al.  Pupillary responses on the visual backward masking task reflect general cognitive ability. , 2004, International journal of psychophysiology : official journal of the International Organization of Psychophysiology.

[47]  F. Paas,et al.  Memory load and the cognitive pupillary response in aging. , 2004, Psychophysiology.

[48]  M. Thase,et al.  Pupillary assessment and computational modeling of the Stroop task in depression. , 2004, International journal of psychophysiology : official journal of the International Organization of Psychophysiology.

[49]  Arthur Wingfield,et al.  Hearing Loss and Perceptual Effort: Downstream Effects on Older Adults’ Memory for Speech , 2005, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[50]  Birgitta Larsby,et al.  Cognitive performance and perceived effort in speech processing tasks: effects of different noise backgrounds in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired subjects. , 2005, International journal of audiology.

[51]  S. Arlinger,et al.  Speech understanding in quiet and noise, with and without hearing aids , 2005, International journal of audiology.

[52]  Raymond J. Dolan,et al.  Anterior cingulate activity during error and autonomic response , 2005, NeuroImage.

[53]  A. Wingfield,et al.  Hearing Loss in Older Adulthood , 2005 .

[54]  Adriana A. Zekveld,et al.  Top–down and bottom–up processes in speech comprehension , 2006, NeuroImage.

[55]  Tammo Houtgast,et al.  Occupational performance: Comparing normally-hearing and hearing-impaired employees using the Amsterdam Checklist for Hearing and Work , 2006, International journal of audiology.

[56]  Perceptual Effort and Apparent Cognitive Decline: Implications for Audiologic Rehabilitation , 2006 .

[57]  Tammo Houtgast,et al.  The development of the text reception threshold test: a visual analogue of the speech reception threshold test. , 2007, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[58]  S. Scott,et al.  Functional Integration across Brain Regions Improves Speech Perception under Adverse Listening Conditions , 2007, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[59]  Brent Edwards,et al.  The Future of Hearing Aid Technology , 2007, Trends in amplification.

[60]  B. Shinn-Cunningham,et al.  Selective Attention in Normal and Impaired Hearing , 2008, Trends in amplification.

[61]  E. Granholm,et al.  Easier tasks can have higher processing loads: task difficulty and cognitive resource limitations in schizophrenia. , 2008, Journal of abnormal psychology.

[62]  S. Steinhauer,et al.  Blink before and after you think: blinks occur prior to and following cognitive load indexed by pupillary responses. , 2008, Psychophysiology.

[63]  M. A. Recarte,et al.  Mental Workload and Visual Impairment: Differences between Pupil, Blink, and Subjective Rating , 2008, The Spanish Journal of Psychology.

[64]  T. Lunner,et al.  Cognition counts: A working memory system for ease of language understanding (ELU) , 2008, International journal of audiology.

[65]  Tammo Houtgast,et al.  User Evaluation of a Communication System That Automatically Generates Captions to Improve Telephone Communication , 2009, Trends in amplification.

[66]  Tammo Houtgast,et al.  Measuring cognitive factors in speech comprehension: the value of using the Text Reception Threshold test as a visual equivalent of the SRT test. , 2009, Scandinavian journal of psychology.

[67]  Tammo Houtgast,et al.  The Influence of Age, Hearing, and Working Memory on the Speech Comprehension Benefit Derived from an Automatic Speech Recognition System , 2009, Ear and hearing.

[68]  A. Wingfield,et al.  Hearing loss and cognitive effort in older adults' report accuracy for verbal materials. , 2009, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[69]  S. T. Goverts,et al.  Hearing status, need for recovery after work, and psychosocial work characteristics: Results from an internet-based national survey on hearing , 2009, International journal of audiology.

[70]  R. Ornstein,et al.  Pupillary Responses During Information Processing Vary with Scholastic Aptitude Test Scores , 2022 .