ReviewTrends in hearing
Time-specific Components of Pupil Responses Reveal Alternations in Effort Allocation Caused by Memory Task Demands During Speech Identification in Noise.
Review in Trends in hearing. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Predicting long-term memory via pupillometry.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Daily communication may be effortful due to poor acoustic quality. In addition, memory demands can induce effort, especially for long or complex sentences. In the current study, we tested the impact of memory task demands and speech-to-noise ratio on the time-specific components of effort allocation during speech identification in noise. Thirty normally hearing adults (15 females, mean age 42.2 years) participated. In an established auditory memory test, listeners had to listen to a list of seven sentences in noise, and repeat the sentence-final word after presentation, and, if instructed, recall the repeated words. We tested the effects of speech-to-noise ratio (SNR; -4 dB, +1 dB) and recall (Recall; Yes, No), on the time-specific components of pupil responses, trial baseline pupil size, and their dynamics (change) along the list. We found three components in the pupil responses (early, middle, and late). While the additional memory task (recall versus no recall) lowered all components' values, SNR (-4 dB versus +1 dB SNR) increased the middle and late component values. Increasing memory demands (Recall) progressively increased trial baseline and steepened decrease of the late component's values. Trial baseline increased most steeply in the condition of +1 dB SNR with recall. The findings suggest that adding a recall to the auditory task alters effort allocation for listening. Listeners are dynamically re-allocating effort from listening to memorizing under changing memory and acoustic demands. The pupil baseline and the time-specific components of pupil responses provide a comprehensive picture of the interplay of SNR and recall on effort.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.