Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39565283›Full record

ArticleEar and hearing

Incorporating Virtual Reality Agents During a Dichotic Speech Reception Task: Insights From the Heart.

Bethany Plain, Hidde Pielage, Adriana A Zekveld, Michael Richter, Tanveer A Bhuiyan, Sjors R B van de Ven, Sophia E Kramer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ear and hearing. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Bethany PlainAmsterdam University Medical Center, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery, Ear & Hearing, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Hidde PielageAmsterdam University Medical Center, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery, Ear & Hearing, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Adriana A ZekveldAmsterdam University Medical Center, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery, Ear & Hearing, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Michael RichterSchool of Psychology, Faculty of Health, Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool, United Kingdom.
Tanveer A BhuiyanDemant A/S, Kongebakken, Smørum, Denmark.
Sjors R B van de VenAmsterdam University Medical Center, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery, Ear & Hearing, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Sophia E KramerAmsterdam University Medical Center, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery, Ear & Hearing, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesListening effort is moderated by not only task difficulty, but also success importance. In real communication scenarios, success importance varies based upon the social context. However, in the laboratory, it can be challenging to manipulate social context without compromising experimental control. Outside of hearing sciences, studies have applied virtual reality (VR) to incorporate social context in a controlled and repeatable manner. Several of these studies have demonstrated that social manipulations in VR can reliably elicit changes in cardiovascular measures. Here, we investigated the effect of adding VR agents to a speech reception task, while measuring from the cardiovascular system.

designTwenty-eight, normally hearing participants undertook a dichotic speech reception task. Sentences in stationary noise were presented dichotically, that is, different sentences presented simultaneously to each ear. Participants were tasked to either repeat one of the sentences (single-sentence condition) or both of the sentences (dual-sentence condition). The task was conducted under two VR conditions: (1) in the presence of agents, who provided sporadic performance feedback and (2) in the presence of nonagent controls, without any feedback given. Alongside task performance, we quantified changes in cardiovascular measures, relative to pretask baselines: heart rate variability, pre-ejection period, heart rate, and blood pressure. After each condition, participants rated their subjective effort, difficulty, performance, and engagement.

resultsPerformance and the subjective perception of performance were lower, while subjective effort and difficulty were higher, in the dual-sentence condition, compared with the single-sentence condition. Heart rate was the only cardiovascular measure that was sensitive to the experimental manipulations. Contrary to our expectations, heart rate increased in the nonagent control conditions, compared with the agent conditions. An exploratory analysis revealed heart rate fluctuations within a trial: heart rate was higher during the first 6 sec of the trial (reflecting the presentence masking noise and the sentence presentation) in the dual-sentence condition, compared with the single-sentence condition.

conclusionsThis study was the first to incorporate VR agents who provided performance feedback during a dichotic speech reception task. Our results suggest that the VR agents did not increase success importance, which could be attributed to a lack of realism of the agents. We also demonstrated that the cardiovascular response to experimental manipulations may differ depending on the data window selected for analysis.

Indexed as

Dichotic Listening TestsHeart RateSpeech PerceptionVirtual RealityAdultBlood PressureFemaleHumansMaleYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID39565283
PMCPMC11825489

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.