A Comparison of Two Methods for Measuring Listening Effort As Part of an Audiologic Test Battery

Abstract

Purpose To evaluate two measures of listening effort (a self-report measure and a word-recall measure) regarding their suitability for inclusion in a comprehensive audiologic testing protocol. The relationship between the two measures was explored and both measures were examined with regard to validity, sensitivity, and impact on speech intelligibility performance. Method Thirty adults with normal hearing participated. Speech intelligibility performance was evaluated at 4 SNRs using keywords embedded in both high and low-context sentences. Listening effort was evaluated at set intervals throughout the speech intelligibility task. Results Results obtained with the two measures were consistent with expected changes in listening effort. However, data obtained with the self-report method demonstrated greater sensitivity to these changes. The two measures were uncorrelated. Under certain conditions, speech intelligibility performance was more negatively impacted when the word-recall measure was used. Exploration of additional theoretical and practical considerations supported a conclusion that the self-report measure was preferable for measuring listening effort simultaneously with speech intelligibility. Conclusions The results of this study provide a rationale for preferring the self-report measure of listening effort over the word recall measure when testing audiologic outcomes.

Impact of Hearing Aid Technology on Outcomes in Daily Life II: Speech Understanding and Listening Effort

“…Some might not accept the notion that people can accurately self-report listening effort in the laboratory or in the real world and might prefer to evaluate performance using a dual-task methodology. Johnson et al (2015) determined that the laboratory self-report method used for this study is equally valid, and in some conditions, preferred over a dual-task measure. The findings of the current study lend further support for the sensitivity and validity of the laboratory self-report measure of listening effort: the only statistical indication of better performance with premium-feature hearing aids was a rating of listening effort in the lab for one brand.…”

“…Therefore we expected that the AFAAF materials and testing procedure would be appropriate for revealing reductions in listening effort that might result from the premium features. Prior to this study we compared the rating method, described below, with a dual-task measure (Johnson et al 2015). That study demonstrated that the rating method was more sensitive to changes in listening demand (i.e., changes in SNR and linguistic context) which were presumed to impact listening effort.…”

Listening and Learning: Cognitive Contributions to the Rehabilitation of Older Adults With and Without Audiometrically Defined Hearing Loss

“…Even though there is interest among scientists and clinicians in determining the factors that underlie effortful listening, a challenge in this quest has been reaching a consensus about what is meant by listening effort and how to measure it (McGarrigle et al 2014; Johnson et al 2015). As summarized in the consensus paper (Pichora-Fuller et al, this issue, pp.…”

Evaluation of the NAL Dynamic Conversations Test in older listeners with hearing loss

“…On the one hand, there are examples demonstrating perceived differences in listening effort across conditions that did not show relative performance differences (e.g. Rudner et al, 2012; Johnson et al, 2015; van den Tillaart-Haverkate et al, 2017), and Humes (1999) found the two variables to be separate hearing aid outcome measures. On the other hand, there are examples in which ratings of effort do follow recognition scores (e.g.…”