Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27252671›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2016

Monitoring Alpha Oscillations and Pupil Dilation across a Performance-Intensity Function.

Catherine M McMahon, Isabelle Boisvert, Peter de Lissa, Louise Granger, Ronny Ibrahim, Chi Yhun Lo, Kelly Miles, Petra L Graham

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
41citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

41 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Neurophysiology of Effortful Listening: Decoupling Motivational Modulation from Task Demands.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2024
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Catherine M McMahonDepartment of Linguistics, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSWAustralia; The HEARing CRC, Melbourne, VICAustralia.
Isabelle BoisvertDepartment of Linguistics, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSWAustralia; The HEARing CRC, Melbourne, VICAustralia.
Peter de LissaThe HEARing CRC, Melbourne, VICAustralia; Department of Psychology, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSWAustralia.
Louise GrangerDepartment of Linguistics, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSWAustralia; The HEARing CRC, Melbourne, VICAustralia.
Ronny IbrahimDepartment of Linguistics, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSWAustralia; The HEARing CRC, Melbourne, VICAustralia.
Chi Yhun LoDepartment of Linguistics, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSWAustralia; The HEARing CRC, Melbourne, VICAustralia.
Kelly MilesDepartment of Linguistics, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSWAustralia; The HEARing CRC, Melbourne, VICAustralia.
Petra L GrahamDepartment of Statistics, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Listening to degraded speech can be challenging and requires a continuous investment of cognitive resources, which is more challenging for those with hearing loss. However, while alpha power (8-12 Hz) and pupil dilation have been suggested as objective correlates of listening effort, it is not clear whether they assess the same cognitive processes involved, or other sensory and/or neurophysiological mechanisms that are associated with the task. Therefore, the aim of this study is to compare alpha power and pupil dilation during a sentence recognition task in 15 randomized levels of noise (-7 to +7 dB SNR) using highly intelligible (16 channel vocoded) and moderately intelligible (6 channel vocoded) speech. Twenty young normal-hearing adults participated in the study, however, due to extraneous noise, data from only 16 (10 females, 6 males; aged 19-28 years) was used in the Electroencephalography (EEG) analysis and 10 in the pupil analysis. Behavioral testing of perceived effort and speech performance was assessed at 3 fixed SNRs per participant and was comparable to sentence recognition performance assessed in the physiological test session for both 16- and 6-channel vocoded sentences. Results showed a significant interaction between channel vocoding for both the alpha power and the pupil size changes. While both measures significantly decreased with more positive SNRs for the 16-channel vocoding, this was not observed with the 6-channel vocoding. The results of this study suggest that these measures may encode different processes involved in speech perception, which show similar trends for highly intelligible speech, but diverge for more spectrally degraded speech. The results to date suggest that these objective correlates of listening effort, and the cognitive processes involved in listening effort, are not yet sufficiently well understood to be used within a clinical setting.

Indexed as

alpha powerlistening effortlistening in noisemental exertionperceived effortpupil dilationspeech perception

Identifiers

PMID27252671
PMCPMC4877370

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.