ArticleFrontiers in psychology2024
Divergent effects of listening demands and evaluative threat on listening effort in online and laboratory settings.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Listening effort (LE) varies as a function of listening demands, motivation and resource availability, among other things. Motivation is posited to have a greater influence on listening effort under high, compared to low, listening demands. Methods: To test this prediction, we manipulated the listening demands of a speech recognition task using tone vocoders to create moderate and high listening demand conditions. We manipulated motivation using evaluative threat, i.e., informing participants that they must reach a particular "score" for their results to be usable. Resource availability was assessed by means of working memory span and included as a fixed effects predictor. Outcome measures were indices of LE, including reaction times (RTs), self-rated work and self-rated tiredness, in addition to task performance (correct response rates). Given the recent popularity of online studies, we also wanted to examine the effect of experimental context (online vs. laboratory) on the efficacy of manipulations of listening demands and motivation. We carried out two highly similar experiments with two groups of 37 young adults, a laboratory experiment and an online experiment. To make listening demands comparable between the two studies, vocoder settings had to differ. All results were analysed using linear mixed models. Results: Results showed that under laboratory conditions, listening demands affected all outcomes, with significantly lower correct response rates, slower RTs and greater self-rated work with higher listening demands. In the online study, listening demands only affected RTs. In addition, motivation affected self-rated work. Resource availability was only a significant predictor for RTs in the online study. Discussion: These results show that the influence of motivation and listening demands on LE depends on the type of outcome measures used and the experimental context. It may also depend on the exact vocoder settings. A controlled laboratory settings and/or particular vocoder settings may be necessary to observe all expected effects of listening demands and motivation.
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.