ArticleBrain and behavior2024
Investigating Sensitivity to Auditory Cognition in Listening Effort Assessments: A Simultaneous EEG and Pupillometry Study.
Article in Brain and behavior, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Investigation of Listening Effort in Tinnitus Patients by Providing Similar Peripheral Auditory Function With Control Group.Brain and behavior · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIt is still not fully explained what kind of cognitive sources the methods used in the assessment of listening effort are more sensitive to and how these measurement results are related to each other. The aim of the study is to ascertain which neural resources crucial for listening effort are most sensitive to objective measurement methods using differently degraded speech stimuli.
methodsA total of 49 individuals between the ages of 19 and 34 with normal hearing participated in the study. In the first stage, simultaneous pupillometry, electroencephalogram (EEG), and single-task paradigm reaction time (RT) measurements were made during the challenging listening and repetition task with noise-vocoded speech. Two speech reception thresholds (SRT) (50% and 80%) for two vocoding conditions (16 and 6 channels) were collected, resulting in 4 conditions. In the second stage, the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test (RAVLT) and the test of attention in listening (TAIL) were applied. Stepwise linear regression analyses were conducted to examine the predictors of listening effort measurements.
resultsA significant difference was found between 6 and 16 channel stimuli in both pupil dilation change and EEG alpha band power change. In the hardest listening condition, whereas RAVLT scores are significant predictors of pupil dilation change, TAIL scores are significant predictors of EEG alpha power. As the stimulus difficulty decreased, the factors that predicted both EEG and pupillometry results decreased. In the single-task paradigm, a significant regression model could not be obtained at all four difficulty levels.
conclusionAs a result of the study, it was found that the pupil dilation change was more sensitive to auditory memory skills and the EEG alpha power change was more sensitive to auditory attention skills. To our knowledge, this study is the first to investigate the sensitivity of different listening effort measurement methods to auditory cognitive skills.
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.