{"title":"The effect of noise on listening effort in children as measured using different methods: a systematic review and meta-analyses.","authors":"Gudambe Nellithaya Spoorthi, Ajith Kumar Uppunda, Mohan Kumar Kalaiah, Usha Shastri","doi":"10.1007/s00405-025-09232-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Listening effort increases as background noise levels rise, affecting both children and adults. Understanding the impact of increased listening effort and identifying effective methods to estimate it in children is crucial, as higher listening effort can hinder learning. This systematic review and meta-analysis examined the effects of noise on listening effort, as measured using various methods, in children aged 5 to 13 years with normal hearing.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Four scientific databases, PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science, were searched to retrieve 23 eligible articles. The methodological quality of the studies was assessed using Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist for Analytical Cross-Sectional Studies. Meta-analysis was performed according to different methods of listening effort [behavioral (single-task paradigm and dual-task paradigm), subjective ratings, and physiological (pupillometry)].</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Single-task paradigm and subjective ratings showed a medium effect of noise on listening effort, which was significant. Dual-task paradigm and pupillometry did not show statistically significant effects of noise on listening effort. Further, speech perception tasks show a greater effect of noise on listening effort as compared to listening comprehension.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Single-task paradigm and subjective rating methods revealed the negative effect of noise on listening effort during spoken language processing in children between 5-13 years of age. Thus, a combination of these two methods might provide useful information regarding the effect of noise on this population. The heterogeneity in the findings could be due to the multidimensional nature of listening effort and lack of construct validity of the methods used to assess listening effort.</p>","PeriodicalId":11952,"journal":{"name":"European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology","volume":" ","pages":"2855-2886"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-025-09232-z","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/2/8 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose: Listening effort increases as background noise levels rise, affecting both children and adults. Understanding the impact of increased listening effort and identifying effective methods to estimate it in children is crucial, as higher listening effort can hinder learning. This systematic review and meta-analysis examined the effects of noise on listening effort, as measured using various methods, in children aged 5 to 13 years with normal hearing.
Methods: Four scientific databases, PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science, were searched to retrieve 23 eligible articles. The methodological quality of the studies was assessed using Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist for Analytical Cross-Sectional Studies. Meta-analysis was performed according to different methods of listening effort [behavioral (single-task paradigm and dual-task paradigm), subjective ratings, and physiological (pupillometry)].
Results: Single-task paradigm and subjective ratings showed a medium effect of noise on listening effort, which was significant. Dual-task paradigm and pupillometry did not show statistically significant effects of noise on listening effort. Further, speech perception tasks show a greater effect of noise on listening effort as compared to listening comprehension.
Conclusions: Single-task paradigm and subjective rating methods revealed the negative effect of noise on listening effort during spoken language processing in children between 5-13 years of age. Thus, a combination of these two methods might provide useful information regarding the effect of noise on this population. The heterogeneity in the findings could be due to the multidimensional nature of listening effort and lack of construct validity of the methods used to assess listening effort.
目的:听力努力随着背景噪音水平的提高而增加,对儿童和成人都有影响。理解增加听力努力的影响并确定有效的方法来评估它对儿童的影响是至关重要的,因为更高的听力努力会阻碍学习。这项系统回顾和荟萃分析研究了噪音对听力努力的影响,使用各种方法测量了5至13岁听力正常的儿童。方法:检索PubMed、Scopus、Cochrane Library和Web of Science四个科学数据库,检索到23篇符合条件的文章。研究的方法学质量采用乔安娜布里格斯研究所分析横断面研究关键评估清单进行评估。根据不同的听力努力方法[行为(单任务范式和双任务范式),主观评分和生理(瞳孔测量)]进行meta分析。结果:单任务范式和主观评分显示噪音对听力努力的中等影响,且显著。双任务范式和瞳孔测量没有显示噪音对听力努力的显著影响。此外,与听力理解相比,语音感知任务显示噪音对听力努力的影响更大。结论:单任务范式和主观评定方法揭示了噪声对5-13岁儿童口语加工听力努力的负向影响。因此,这两种方法的结合可能提供有关噪声对该种群影响的有用信息。研究结果的异质性可能是由于听力努力的多维性和评估听力努力的方法缺乏结构效度。
期刊介绍:
Official Journal of
European Union of Medical Specialists – ORL Section and Board
Official Journal of Confederation of European Oto-Rhino-Laryngology Head and Neck Surgery
"European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology" publishes original clinical reports and clinically relevant experimental studies, as well as short communications presenting new results of special interest. With peer review by a respected international editorial board and prompt English-language publication, the journal provides rapid dissemination of information by authors from around the world. This particular feature makes it the journal of choice for readers who want to be informed about the continuing state of the art concerning basic sciences and the diagnosis and management of diseases of the head and neck on an international level.
European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology was founded in 1864 as "Archiv für Ohrenheilkunde" by A. von Tröltsch, A. Politzer and H. Schwartze.