ReviewTrends in hearing
Note on the Dual-Task Paradigm and its Use to Measure Listening Effort.
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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- The dual-task costs of audiovisual benefit: Effects of noise and "native" speaker status.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2026Article
- Impacts of listening practice on work performance while wearing hearing protection.Discover public health · 2026Article
- Imperfect Captions Paired to Audiovisual Stimuli Improve Speech Recognition but Do Not Reduce Listening-Related Fatigue.American journal of audiology · 2025Article
- How Temporal Overlap in Task Processing and Acoustic Load Affect Listening Effort in Adults.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
Abstract
People regularly communicate in complex environments, requiring them to flexibly shift their attention across multiple sources of sensory information. Increasing recruitment of the executive functions that support successful speech comprehension in these multitasking settings is thought to contribute to the sense of effort that listeners often experience. One common research method employed to quantify listening effort is the dual-task paradigm in which individuals recognize speech and concurrently perform a secondary (often visual) task. Effort is operationalized as performance decrements on the secondary task as speech processing demands increase. However, recent reviews have noted critical inconsistencies in the results of dual-task experiments, likely in part due to how and when the two tasks place demands on a common set of mental resources and how flexibly individuals can allocate their attention to them. We propose that in order to move forward to address this gap, we need to first look backward: better integrating theoretical models of resource capacity and allocation as well as of task-switching that have been historically developed in domains outside of hearing research (viz., cognitive psychology and neuroscience). With this context in mind, we describe how dual-task experiments could be designed and interpreted such that they provide better and more robust insights into the mechanisms that contribute to effortful listening.
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.