Using response time to speech as a measure for listening effort

Abstract Objective: Speech signals that do not differ in intelligibility might differ in listening effort. This study aimed to investigate the effect of background noise on response time to intelligible speech. Design: We added various amounts of stationary noise to spoken digit triplets and measured the influence of noise on the response time for both an identification and an arithmetic task: Task 1 ‘identify the final digit in a triplet’, and Task 2 ‘calculate the sum of the initial and the final digits in a triplet.’ Study sample: Twelve normal-hearing participants with a mean age of 30.6 years (range: 28–44 years). Results: Response time increased with lower (i.e. worse) signal to noise ratios for both tasks, even for signal to noise ratios with almost maximum intelligibility (close to 100%). The response time during the arithmetic task was more affected by the noise than during the identification task, but the arithmetic task demonstrated higher variance. Conclusions: The response time to digit triplets reduces significantly for increasing signal to noise ratios, even where speech intelligibility is optimal. These differences in response time might be related to listening effort and as such might be used to evaluate hearing-aid signal processing at positive SNRs.

[1]  Patrick Rabbitt Recognition: Memory for words correctly heard in noise , 1966 .

[2]  J. F. Feuerstein Monaural versus binaural hearing: ease of listening, word recognition, and attentional effort. , 1992, Ear and hearing.

[3]  Jean-Pierre Gagné,et al.  Older adults expend more listening effort than young adults recognizing audiovisual speech in noise , 2011, International journal of audiology.

[4]  D H Brainard,et al.  The Psychophysics Toolbox. , 1997, Spatial vision.

[5]  Jean-Pierre Gagné,et al.  Evaluating the effort expended to understand speech in noise using a dual-task paradigm: the effects of providing visual speech cues. , 2010, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[6]  Carol L Mackersie,et al.  Subjective and psychophysiological indexes of listening effort in a competing-talker task. , 2011, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[7]  D. Kahneman,et al.  Pupillary changes in two memory tasks , 1966 .

[8]  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.

[9]  W. Levelt,et al.  Pupillary dilation as a measure of attention: a quantitative system analysis , 1993 .

[10]  Nicholas S. Thompson,et al.  Whines, cries, and motherese: Their relative power to distract. , 2011 .

[11]  B C Moore,et al.  Spectral contrast enhancement of speech in noise for listeners with sensorineural hearing impairment: effects on intelligibility, quality, and response times. , 1993, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.

[12]  C L Mackersie,et al.  Use of a simultaneous sentence perception test to enhance sensitivity to ease of listening. , 2000, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[13]  S Gatehouse,et al.  Response times to speech stimuli as measures of benefit from amplification. , 1990, British journal of audiology.

[14]  Mark Huckvale,et al.  Effect of noise reduction on reaction time to speech in noise , 2009, INTERSPEECH.

[15]  Dawna E Lewis,et al.  Effect of Stimulus Bandwidth on Auditory Skills in Normal-Hearing and Hearing-Impaired Children , 2007, Ear and hearing.

[16]  Laetitia Gros,et al.  Reaction Times and Performances in Recognition Tasks to Assess Speech Quality , 2008 .

[17]  Rainer Martin,et al.  HearCom: hearing in the communication society , 2011 .

[18]  Tammo Houtgast,et al.  Development and validation of an automatic speech-in-noise screening test by telephone , 2004, International journal of audiology.

[19]  D. Downs Effects of hearing and use on speech discrimination and listening effort. , 1982, The Journal of speech and hearing disorders.

[20]  W. A. Wagenaar Note on the construction of digram-balanced Latin squares. , 1969 .

[21]  Olivier Crouzet,et al.  Temporal envelope expansion of speech in noise for normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners: effects on identification performance and response times , 2001, Hearing Research.

[22]  D W Downs,et al.  Processing demands during auditory learning under degraded listening conditions. , 1978, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[23]  D. Kahneman Attention and Effort , 1973 .

[24]  Candace Bourland Hick,et al.  Listening effort and fatigue in school-age children with and without hearing loss. , 2002, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[25]  R. Whelan Effective Analysis of Reaction Time Data , 2008 .

[26]  Wouter A Dreschler,et al.  Perceptual Effects of Noise Reduction With Respect to Personal Preference, Speech Intelligibility, and Listening Effort , 2013, Ear and hearing.

[27]  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.

[28]  G. Studebaker A "rationalized" arcsine transform. , 1985, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[29]  W. Noble,et al.  The Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing Scale (SSQ) , 2004, International journal of audiology.

[30]  Christopher J. Plack,et al.  Listening effort at signal-to-noise ratios that are typical of the school classroom , 2010, International journal of audiology.

[31]  Mark Marzinzik,et al.  Noise Reduction Schemes for Digital Hearing Aids and Their Use for the Hearing Impaired , 2001 .

[32]  Sridhar Kalluri,et al.  Objective measures of listening effort: effects of background noise and noise reduction. , 2009, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[33]  Giso Grimm,et al.  Multicenter evaluation of signal enhancement algorithms for hearing aids. , 2010, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[34]  Roger Ratcliff,et al.  Methods for Dealing With Reaction Time Outliers , 1992 .

[35]  R. Baayen,et al.  Analyzing Reaction Times , 2010 .

[36]  Kyoung-Min Lee,et al.  Arithmetic operation and working memory: differential suppression in dual tasks , 2002, Cognition.

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