Personality captures dissociations of subjective versus objective hearing in noise

Wöstmann, Malte; Erb, Julia; Kreitewolf, Jens; Obleser, Jonas

doi:10.1098/rsos.210881

Cited by 8 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 88 publications

(93 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Age-related hearing loss often deteriorates neural and behavioral implementation of auditory selective attention, the degree of which varies across listeners (Dai et al, 2018; Tune et al, 2021). Objective measures of listening behavior, however, do not reveal the full spectrum of problems that the hearing impaired experiences in challenging listening situations (Wostmann et al, 2021). To understand, predict, or compensate this deficit at the individual level, it is essential to find neural markers of subjective and objective measures of selective listening.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Brain network interconnectivity dynamics explain metacognitive differences in listening behavior

Alavash

Obleser

2023

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Complex auditory scenes pose a challenge to attentive listening, rendering listeners slower and more uncertain in their perceptual decisions. How can we explain such behaviors from the dynamics of cortical networks that pertain to control of listening behavior? We here follow up on our hypothesis that listener's ability to flexibly adapt to challenging listening situations is supported by modular reconfiguration of auditory-control networks in a sample of N=40 participants who underwent resting-state and task fMRI. Individual titration of a spatial selective auditory attention task maintained an average accuracy of ~70% but yielded considerable inter-individual differences in listeners' response speed and reported confidence. Whole-brain network modularity increased from rest to task by reconfiguring auditory, cinguloopercular, and dorsal attention networks. Specifically, interconnectivity between nodes of auditory network and ciguloopercular network decreased mainly in suramarginal gyri, anterior insular, and anterior-/mid-cingulate cortices. In addition, interconnectivity between nodes of dorsal attention network and cinguloopercular network increased in parietal lobules and frontal eye-fields. These interconnectivity dynamics were predictive of individual differences in response speed and confidence. Our findings uncover the behavioral relevance of functional crosstalk between sensory and attentional-control networks under uncertainty and suggest two functionally dissociable cortical networked systems that shape metacognitive differences between individuals.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This subjective evaluation can be viewed as a second-order measure of listening behavior, also referred to as "type II" decision (see above ref.). Such subjective reports can vary markedly from objective measures of listening behavior (Wostmann et al, 2021).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Brain network interconnectivity dynamics explain metacognitive differences in listening behavior

Alavash

Obleser

2023

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Workload measurements depend on the individual listener’s capacity for the task, the resilience to noise in general,[ 144 ] and the sensitivity of the measurement method. Therefore, the outcome of the total workload from combined noise- and task-related processes is an interaction of several factors.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quantifying the Effect of Noise on Cognitive Processes: A Review of Psychophysiological Correlates of Workload

Grenzebach

Romanus

2022

Noise Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Noise is present in most work environments, including emissions from machines and devices, irrelevant speech from colleagues, and traffic noise. Although it is generally accepted that noise below the permissible exposure limits does not pose a considerable risk for auditory effects like hearing impairments. Yet, noise can have a direct adverse effect on cognitive performance (non-auditory effects like workload or stress). Under certain circumstances, the observable performance for a task carried out in silence compared to noisy surroundings may not differ. One possible explanation for this phenomenon needs further investigation: individuals may invest additional cognitive resources to overcome the distraction from irrelevant auditory stimulation. Recent developments in measurements of psychophysiological correlates and analysis methods of load-related parameters can shed light on this complex interaction. These objective measurements complement subjective self-report of perceived effort by quantifying unnoticed noise-related cognitive workload. In this review, literature databases were searched for peer-reviewed journal articles that deal with an at least partially irrelevant “auditory stimulation” during an ongoing “cognitive task” that is accompanied by “psychophysiological correlates” to quantify the “momentary workload.” The spectrum of assessed types of “auditory stimulations” extended from speech stimuli (varying intelligibility), oddball sounds (repeating short tone sequences), and auditory stressors (white noise, task-irrelevant real-life sounds). The type of “auditory stimulation” was related (speech stimuli) or unrelated (oddball, auditory stressor) to the type of primary “cognitive task.” The types of “cognitive tasks” include speech-related tasks, fundamental psychological assessment tasks, and real-world/simulated tasks. The “psychophysiological correlates” include pupillometry and eye-tracking, recordings of brain activity (hemodynamic, potentials), cardiovascular markers, skin conductance, endocrinological markers, and behavioral markers. The prevention of negative effects on health by unexpected stressful soundscapes during mental work starts with the continuous estimation of cognitive workload triggered by auditory noise. This review gives a comprehensive overview of methods that were tested for their sensitivity as markers of workload in various auditory settings during cognitive processing.

show abstract

“…Whether a person with hearing loss will socially withdraw may also depend on additional factors beyond hearing loss. Personality traits such as extraversion versus introversion may determine a person's choice to continue to participate socially despite challenges (e.g., extraversion) or withdraw from participation instead (e.g., introversion; Weinstein (1978); but see also Berg & Johansson (2014) and Wöstmann et al, (2021) for effects of hearing loss on personality traits). Age also appears to be an important factor in the progression to social isolation (Mick & Pichora-Fuller, 2016), with unaddressed/unacknowledged hearing loss linked to an increased risk of social isolation, but only for those between 60-69 and not 70 or older (Mick & Pichora-Fuller, 2016).…”

Section: Social Withdrawalmentioning

confidence: 99%

A longitudinal framework to describe the relation between age-related hearing loss and social isolation

Motala¹,

Johnsrude²

2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many older adults have difficulty understanding speech in the presence of background sound. Experiences resulting from such comprehension difficulties include increased listening effort and fatigue, and reduced enjoyment. Social interactions may become less appealing in the context of such experiences, and age-related hearing loss is associated with an increased risk of social isolation and associated negative psychosocial health outcomes. However, the precise relationship between age-related hearing loss and social isolation is not well described. Here, we review the literature on the relationship between hearing loss and social isolation, and propose a framework with different stages along a continuous progression: within-situation disengagement from listening, social withdrawal, and social isolation. We describe the distinct characteristics of each stage and suggest potential interventions to mitigate negative impacts of hearing loss on social lives and health. We close by outlining potential implications for researchers and clinicians.

show abstract

Personality captures dissociations of subjective versus objective hearing in noise

Cited by 8 publications

References 88 publications

Brain network interconnectivity dynamics explain metacognitive differences in listening behavior

Brain network interconnectivity dynamics explain metacognitive differences in listening behavior

Quantifying the Effect of Noise on Cognitive Processes: A Review of Psychophysiological Correlates of Workload

A longitudinal framework to describe the relation between age-related hearing loss and social isolation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About