Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28938250›Full record

ReviewEar and hearing

Listening Effort: How the Cognitive Consequences of Acoustic Challenge Are Reflected in Brain and Behavior.

Jonathan E Peelle

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Ear and hearing. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 286 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
286citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
19.1field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

286 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 653 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Effect of Hearing Intervention Versus Health Education Control on Fatigue: A Secondary Analysis of the ACHIEVE Study.The journals of gerontology. Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences · 2024
    Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Parents' neural dynamics in response to their children's speech.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

226 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

1 author at 1 institution in 2 countries.

Jonathan E PeelleDepartment of Otolaryngology, Washington University in Saint Louis, Saint Louis, Missouri, USA.
Washington University in St. Louis · US

Funding

THE NEUROCOGNITIVE BASIS OF EFFORTFUL LISTENING - Administrative supplement for Alzheimer's DiseaseR01DC014281 · NIDCD · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI PEELLE, JONATHAN E · 2015 to 2019
$3.1M
Age, Hearing Loss, and Sentence Comprehension: Neural CorrelatesR01AG038490 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI GROSSMAN, MURRAY · 2012 to 2016
$2.1M
NEURAL SYSTEMS SUPPORTING SPEECH PROCESSING IN LISTENERS WITH COCHLEAR IMPLANTSR21DC015884 · NIDCD · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI PEELLE, JONATHAN E · 2017 to 2018
$419k
NIA NIH HHS R01 AG038490NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC014281NIDCD NIH HHS R21 DC015884
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Everyday conversation frequently includes challenges to the clarity of the acoustic speech signal, including hearing impairment, background noise, and foreign accents. Although an obvious problem is the increased risk of making word identification errors, extracting meaning from a degraded acoustic signal is also cognitively demanding, which contributes to increased listening effort. The concepts of cognitive demand and listening effort are critical in understanding the challenges listeners face in comprehension, which are not fully predicted by audiometric measures. In this article, the authors review converging behavioral, pupillometric, and neuroimaging evidence that understanding acoustically degraded speech requires additional cognitive support and that this cognitive load can interfere with other operations such as language processing and memory for what has been heard. Behaviorally, acoustic challenge is associated with increased errors in speech understanding, poorer performance on concurrent secondary tasks, more difficulty processing linguistically complex sentences, and reduced memory for verbal material. Measures of pupil dilation support the challenge associated with processing a degraded acoustic signal, indirectly reflecting an increase in neural activity. Finally, functional brain imaging reveals that the neural resources required to understand degraded speech extend beyond traditional perisylvian language networks, most commonly including regions of prefrontal cortex, premotor cortex, and the cingulo-opercular network. Far from being exclusively an auditory problem, acoustic degradation presents listeners with a systems-level challenge that requires the allocation of executive cognitive resources. An important point is that a number of dissociable processes can be engaged to understand degraded speech, including verbal working memory and attention-based performance monitoring. The specific resources required likely differ as a function of the acoustic, linguistic, and cognitive demands of the task, as well as individual differences in listeners' abilities. A greater appreciation of cognitive contributions to processing degraded speech is critical in understanding individual differences in comprehension ability, variability in the efficacy of assistive devices, and guiding rehabilitation approaches to reducing listening effort and facilitating communication.

Indexed as

CognitionSpeech PerceptionHumansMemory, Short-TermNeuroimaging

Identifiers

PMID28938250
PMCPMC5821557
OpenAlexW2757633771

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.