Effect of Speaker Age on Speech Recognition and Perceived Listening Effort in Older Adults With Hearing Loss

McAuliffe, Megan J.; Wilding, Phillipa Jane; Rickard, Natalie A.; O’Beirne, Greg A.

doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2011/11-0101)

Cited by 23 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 45 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…No significant difference in speech recognition existed when stimuli were derived from younger and older speakers. However, perceived effort was significantly higher when listening to speech from older adults, as compared with younger adults [ 24 ]. That study revealed that older listeners with hearing loss exhibited similar levels of speech understanding when listening to the speech of younger and older adults.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of Single-Task versus Dual-Task for Listening Effort

Kwak

Han

2018

J Audiol Otol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and ObjectivesDepending on the kind of task and/or material, listeners sometimes need to pay attention to understand communication. The present study aimed to estimate a listener’s amount of effort needed to understand communication by using recognition score and response time as a function of signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and to confirm his/ her task dependency for listening effort.Subjects and MethodsForty-eight young adults with normal hearing participated in the study. As stimuli, Korean Speech Perception in Noise test without a question tag and three consecutive digits were used for sentence recognition (or single-task) and arithmetic (or dual-task), respectively. Both tasks were measured in quiet and under four SNR (i.e., 0, -4, -8, -12 dB) conditions. Their outcomes were analyzed and compared in terms of percent correct and response time.ResultsSentence recognition scores and arithmetic scores decreased as the level of noise increased. Response time for sentence recognition decreased as noise increased, whereas the response time for arithmetic increased as noise increased. In addition, there was a negative correlation between error percent and response time in the sentence recognition. Conversely, a positive correlation between error percent and response time appeared in the arithmetic test.ConclusionsListening effort showed a different pattern based on the kind of task, single vs. dual, while the dual-task required greater effort from the listener.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of Single-Task versus Dual-Task for Listening Effort

Kwak

Han

2018

J Audiol Otol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…After the final noise offset, the participants were prompted to decide whether the sentence matched the picture or not via a button press (left or right mouse button). After the comprehension task, the participants were instructed to rate how difficult it was to understand the sentence using a continuous visual analog scale ( McAuliffe et al, 2012 ). They were asked to indicate their rating by positioning a mouse on a continuous slider marked “easy” and “difficult” at the extremes.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impact of Background Noise and Sentence Complexity on Processing Demands during Sentence Comprehension

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Speech comprehension in adverse listening conditions can be effortful even when speech is fully intelligible. Acoustical distortions typically make speech comprehension more effortful, but effort also depends on linguistic aspects of the speech signal, such as its syntactic complexity. In the present study, pupil dilations, and subjective effort ratings were recorded in 20 normal-hearing participants while performing a sentence comprehension task. The sentences were either syntactically simple (subjectfirst sentence structure) or complex (object-first sentence structure) and were presented in two levels of background noise both corresponding to high intelligibility. A digit span and a reading span test were used to assess individual differences in the participants' working memory capacity (WMC). The results showed that the subjectively rated effort was mostly affected by the noise level and less by syntactic complexity. Conversely, pupil dilations increased with syntactic complexity but only showed a small effect of the noise level. Participants with higher WMC showed increased pupil responses in the higher-level noise condition but rated sentence comprehension as being less effortful compared to participants with lower WMC. Overall, the results demonstrate that pupil dilations and subjectively rated effort represent different aspects of effort. Furthermore, the results indicate that effort can vary in situations with high speech intelligibility.

show abstract

“…A trained research assistant transcribed listener responses in real time. Responses were also audio-recorded, and the transcriptions were crosschecked prior to data coding and analysis (as per McAuliffe et al, 2012McAuliffe et al, , 2013. We chose this process over a standard computer-based transcription task because it enables younger listener transcriptions to be compared with older listener transcriptions (e.g., McAuliffe et al, 2013).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Perceptual selection and acoustic verification. As is usual in studies of this kind, a phrase selection and verification process was undertaken (e.g., Borrie et al, 2012;Liss et al, 1998Liss et al, , 2000McAuliffe, Wilding, Rickard, & O'Beirne, 2012). The intent of this process was to select phrases from each speaker that most strongly conformed to our perceptual criteria (as judged by two expert judges, the first and third authors) and subsequently to verify acoustically these perceptual impressions.…”

Section: Experimental Stimulimentioning

confidence: 99%