Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40001269›Full record

ArticleEar and hearing

Relationship Between Auditory Distraction and Emotional Dimensionality for Non-Speech Sounds.

Shae D Morgan, Erin M Picou, Elizabeth D Young, Samantha J Gustafson

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. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
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

4 authors.

Shae D MorganAudiology Program, Department of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery and Communicative Disorders, School of Medicine, University of Louisville, Louisville, Kentucky, USA.
Erin M PicouDepartment of Hearing and Speech, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, USA.
Elizabeth D YoungDepartment of Communication Sciences and Disorders, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA.
Samantha J GustafsonDepartment of Communication Sciences and Disorders, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA.

Funding

The Vanderbilt Institute for Clinical and Translational Research (VICTR)UL1TR000445 · NCATS · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER · PI BERNARD, GORDON RAPHAEL · 2012 to 2016
$41.4M
Utah Center for Clinical and Translational ScienceUL1TR002538 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF UTAH · PI HESS, RACHEL, MAJERSIK, JENNIFER JUHL · 2018 to 2022
$26.0M
CTSA UM1 Program at University of UtahUM1TR004409 · NCATS · UTAH STATE HIGHER EDUCATION SYSTEM--UNIVERSITY OF UTAH · PI RACHEL HESS, Jennifer Juhl Majersik · 2023 to 2026
$21.9M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR000445NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR002538NCATS NIH HHS UM1 TR004409
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesIf task-irrelevant sounds are present when someone is actively listening to speech, the irrelevant sounds can cause distraction, reducing word recognition performance and increasing listening effort. In some previous investigations into auditory distraction, the task-irrelevant stimuli were non-speech sounds (e.g., laughter, animal sounds, music), which are known to elicit a variety of emotional responses. Variations in the emotional response to a task-irrelevant sound could influence the distraction effect. The goal of this study was to examine the relationship between the arousal (exciting versus calming) or valence (positive versus negative) of task-irrelevant auditory stimuli and auditory distraction. Using non-speech sounds that have been used previously in a distraction task, we sought to determine whether stimulus characteristics of arousal or valence affected word recognition or verbal response times (which serve as a measure of behavioral listening effort). We anticipated that the perceived arousal and valence of task-irrelevant stimuli would be related to distraction from target stimuli.

designIn an online listening task, 19 young adult listeners rated the valence and arousal of non-speech sounds, which previously served as task-irrelevant stimuli in studies of auditory distraction. Word recognition and verbal response time data from these previous studies were reanalyzed using the present data to evaluate the effect of valence or arousal stimulus category on the distraction effect in quiet and in noise. In addition, correlation analyses were conducted between ratings of valence, ratings of arousal, word recognition performance, and verbal response times.

resultsThe presence of task-irrelevant stimuli affected word recognition performance. This effect was observed generally in quiet and for stimuli rated as exciting (in noise) or calming (in quiet). The presence of task-irrelevant stimuli also affected reaction times. Background noise increased verbal response times by approximately 35 msec. In addition, all task-irrelevant stimuli, regardless of valence or arousal category, increased verbal response times by more than 200 msec relative to the condition with no task-irrelevant stimuli. Valenced stimuli caused the largest distraction effect on response times; there was no difference in the distraction effect on verbal response times based on the stimulus arousal category. Correlation analyses between valence ratings and dependent variables (word recognition and reaction time) revealed that, in quiet, there was a weak, but statistically significant, relationship between valence ratings (absolute deviation from neutral) and word recognition scores; the more valenced a stimulus, the more distracting it was in terms of word recognition performance. This significant relationship between valence and word recognition was not evident when participants completed the speech task in noise. There was no relationship between stimulus ratings (arousal or valence) and reaction time in quiet or in noise.

conclusionsValenced (positive and negative) or exciting task-irrelevant non-speech sounds can negatively affect word recognition and increase listening effort. Future study should consider the emotional content of task-irrelevant stimuli when evaluating potential distraction effects.

Indexed as

ArousalAttentionAuditory PerceptionEmotionsAcoustic StimulationAdolescentAdultFemaleHumansMaleReaction TimeSpeech PerceptionYoung AdultArousalDistractionEmotionListening effortValenceWord recognition

Identifiers

PMID40001269
PMCPMC12581148

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.