ArticleJournal of the American Academy of Audiology2026
Pupillometry Reflects Listening Effort as a Function of Talker in the AzBio Sentences.
Article in Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 2026. 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Pupillometry, or the quantification of pupil size, reflects a variety of processes involved in listening effort and is sensitive to many cognitive demands even when word recognition abilities are high. However, it is uncommon for studies to use clinical tests to examine listening effort, which increases barriers for audiologists seeking to apply this information to their clinical practice. The AzBio sentences present a unique opportunity to use a clinical test to categorize a common concern reported by patients: certain talkers are more difficult to understand than others. Purpose: The purpose of this exploratory study was to parse the effects of condition (i.e., quiet vs. 10-talker babble), hearing status, and talker on listening effort by using pupillometry. Research Design: Within-participants cross-sectional design. Study Sample: Fifty-one adults were recruited for this prospective study. Twenty-two participants had no hearing loss, and 29 exhibited a three-frequency (1000-, 2000-, and 4000-Hz) pure tone average greater than 20 decibels hearing level (dB HL) but less than 70 dB HL. Of the participants with hearing loss, 18 wore hearing aids. Data Collection and Analysis: Changes in pupil dilation were measured using a remote eye tracker as participants listened to and repeated back AzBio sentences spoken by four distinct talkers: Male1, Male2, Female1, and Female2. Statistical analyses were performed on pupil dilation using linear mixed effects modeling and growth curve analysis (GCA). Results: Peak pupil dilation was largest for the participants with hearing loss who did not wear hearing aids. Peak dilations were also largest when participants listened to Male1 in 10-talker babble. GCA demonstrated that mean pupil diameter was larger for both male talkers than for the female talkers, and the linear growth rate of pupil dilation was significantly slower for participants without hearing loss. Conclusions: This study demonstrated that despite high word recognition abilities, unaided hearing loss and specific male talkers increased listening effort when participants listened to AzBio sentences. Clinical Relevance Statement: These results will be of interest to clinicians who are interested in learning about how listening effort contributes to patient-reported difficulties in clinical practice.
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.