ReviewSeminars in hearing2023
Dual-Task Paradigm Measures of Listening Effort: To Include or Not to Include Secondary Task Responses with Incorrect Primary Task Responses.
Review in Seminars in hearing, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The effect of noise on listening effort in children as measured using different methods: a systematic review and meta-analyses.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Imperfect Captions Paired to Audiovisual Stimuli Improve Speech Recognition but Do Not Reduce Listening-Related Fatigue.American journal of audiology · 2025Article
- Review
- Listening Effort in Complex Audiovisual Scenes Under Varying Simulated Room Acoustic Conditions.Trends in hearingArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Response time-based dual-task paradigms are commonly adopted to measure behavioral listening effort. Most extant studies used an all-response approach that included secondary task responses under both correct and incorrect primary task responses during analysis. However, evidence supporting this strategy is limited. Therefore, the current study investigated the potential differences between including all responses versus only including correct responses. Data from two previous studies were reanalyzed. Experiment 1 included 16 listeners and used a dual-task paradigm to examine the effect of introducing background noise on listening effort. Experiment 2 included 19 participants and used a different dual-task paradigm to examine the effect of reverberation and loudspeaker-to-listener distance on listening effort. ANOVA results obtained using both analysis approaches were compared. The all-response and correct-only approaches revealed similar results. However, larger effect sizes and an additional main effect were found with the all-response approach. The current study supports the use of an all-response approach due to its greater sensitivity to changes in behavioral listening effort. However, a correct-only approach could be utilized to suit specific study purposes.
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.