{"title":"Dual-Task Interference in the Assessment of Listening Effort: Results of Normal-Hearing Adults, Cochlear Implant Users, and Hearing Aid Users.","authors":"Dorien Ceuleers, Sofie Degeest, Freya Swinnen, Nele Baudonck, Katrien Kestens, Ingeborg Dhooge, Hannah Keppler","doi":"10.1044/2024_JSLHR-23-00636","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The purpose of the current study was to assess dual-task interference (i.e., changes between the dual-task and baseline condition) in a listening effort dual-task paradigm in normal-hearing (NH) adults, hearing aid (HA) users, and cochlear implant (CI) users.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Three groups of 31 participants were included: (a) NH adults, (b) HA users, and (c) CI users. The dual-task paradigm consisted of a primary speech understanding task in a quiet condition, and a favorable and unfavorable noise condition, and a secondary visual memory task. Dual-task interference was calculated for both tasks, and participants were classified based on their patterns of interference. Descriptive analyses were established and differences between the three groups were examined.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The descriptive results showed varying patterns of dual-task interference between the three listening conditions. Most participants showed the pattern of visual memory interference (i.e., worse results for the secondary task in the dual-task condition and no difference for the primary task) in the quiet condition, whereas the pattern of speech understanding priority trade-off (i.e., worse results for the secondary task in the dual-task condition and better results for the primary task) was most prominent in the unfavorable noise condition. Particularly, in HA and CI users, this shift was seen. However, the patterns of dual-task interference were not statistically different between the three groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Results of this study may provide additional insight into the interpretation of dual-task paradigms for measuring listening effort in diverse participant groups. It highlights the importance of considering both the primary and secondary tasks for accurate interpretation of results.</p><p><strong>Supplemental material: </strong>https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.26409088.</p>","PeriodicalId":51254,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1044/2024_JSLHR-23-00636","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/8/6 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of the current study was to assess dual-task interference (i.e., changes between the dual-task and baseline condition) in a listening effort dual-task paradigm in normal-hearing (NH) adults, hearing aid (HA) users, and cochlear implant (CI) users.
Method: Three groups of 31 participants were included: (a) NH adults, (b) HA users, and (c) CI users. The dual-task paradigm consisted of a primary speech understanding task in a quiet condition, and a favorable and unfavorable noise condition, and a secondary visual memory task. Dual-task interference was calculated for both tasks, and participants were classified based on their patterns of interference. Descriptive analyses were established and differences between the three groups were examined.
Results: The descriptive results showed varying patterns of dual-task interference between the three listening conditions. Most participants showed the pattern of visual memory interference (i.e., worse results for the secondary task in the dual-task condition and no difference for the primary task) in the quiet condition, whereas the pattern of speech understanding priority trade-off (i.e., worse results for the secondary task in the dual-task condition and better results for the primary task) was most prominent in the unfavorable noise condition. Particularly, in HA and CI users, this shift was seen. However, the patterns of dual-task interference were not statistically different between the three groups.
Conclusions: Results of this study may provide additional insight into the interpretation of dual-task paradigms for measuring listening effort in diverse participant groups. It highlights the importance of considering both the primary and secondary tasks for accurate interpretation of results.
期刊介绍：
Mission: JSLHR publishes peer-reviewed research and other scholarly articles on the normal and disordered processes in speech, language, hearing, and related areas such as cognition, oral-motor function, and swallowing. The journal is an international outlet for both basic research on communication processes and clinical research pertaining to screening, diagnosis, and management of communication disorders as well as the etiologies and characteristics of these disorders. JSLHR seeks to advance evidence-based practice by disseminating the results of new studies as well as providing a forum for critical reviews and meta-analyses of previously published work.
Scope: The broad field of communication sciences and disorders, including speech production and perception; anatomy and physiology of speech and voice; genetics, biomechanics, and other basic sciences pertaining to human communication; mastication and swallowing; speech disorders; voice disorders; development of speech, language, or hearing in children; normal language processes; language disorders; disorders of hearing and balance; psychoacoustics; and anatomy and physiology of hearing.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
