Dual-Task Paradigm Measures of Listening Effort: To Include or Not to Include Secondary Task Responses with Incorrect Primary Task Responses.

Q2 Health Professions Seminars in Hearing Pub Date : 2023-03-28 eCollection Date: 2023-05-01 DOI:10.1055/s-0043-1766140
Haiping Huang, Ilze Oosthuizen, Erin M Picou
{"title":"Dual-Task Paradigm Measures of Listening Effort: To Include or Not to Include Secondary Task Responses with Incorrect Primary Task Responses.","authors":"Haiping Huang, Ilze Oosthuizen, Erin M Picou","doi":"10.1055/s-0043-1766140","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Response time-based dual-task paradigms are commonly adopted to measure behavioral listening effort. Most extant studies used an all-response approach that included secondary task responses under both correct and incorrect primary task responses during analysis. However, evidence supporting this strategy is limited. Therefore, the current study investigated the potential differences between including all responses versus only including correct responses. Data from two previous studies were reanalyzed. Experiment 1 included 16 listeners and used a dual-task paradigm to examine the effect of introducing background noise on listening effort. Experiment 2 included 19 participants and used a different dual-task paradigm to examine the effect of reverberation and loudspeaker-to-listener distance on listening effort. ANOVA results obtained using both analysis approaches were compared. The all-response and correct-only approaches revealed similar results. However, larger effect sizes and an additional main effect were found with the all-response approach. The current study supports the use of an all-response approach due to its greater sensitivity to changes in behavioral listening effort. However, a correct-only approach could be utilized to suit specific study purposes.</p>","PeriodicalId":53691,"journal":{"name":"Seminars in Hearing","volume":"44 2","pages":"155-165"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10147511/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Seminars in Hearing","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0043-1766140","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/5/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Health Professions","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Response time-based dual-task paradigms are commonly adopted to measure behavioral listening effort. Most extant studies used an all-response approach that included secondary task responses under both correct and incorrect primary task responses during analysis. However, evidence supporting this strategy is limited. Therefore, the current study investigated the potential differences between including all responses versus only including correct responses. Data from two previous studies were reanalyzed. Experiment 1 included 16 listeners and used a dual-task paradigm to examine the effect of introducing background noise on listening effort. Experiment 2 included 19 participants and used a different dual-task paradigm to examine the effect of reverberation and loudspeaker-to-listener distance on listening effort. ANOVA results obtained using both analysis approaches were compared. The all-response and correct-only approaches revealed similar results. However, larger effect sizes and an additional main effect were found with the all-response approach. The current study supports the use of an all-response approach due to its greater sensitivity to changes in behavioral listening effort. However, a correct-only approach could be utilized to suit specific study purposes.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
听力努力的双任务范式测量:包括或不包括次要任务反应与不正确的主要任务反应。
基于反应时间的双任务范式通常用于测量行为听力。大多数现有研究都采用了全反应方法,即在分析过程中将次要任务反应包含在正确和错误的主要任务反应之下。然而,支持这种策略的证据很有限。因此,本研究调查了包含所有反应与仅包含正确反应之间的潜在差异。我们对之前两项研究的数据进行了重新分析。实验 1 包括 16 名听者,使用双任务范式来研究引入背景噪音对听力的影响。实验 2 包括 19 名参与者,采用不同的双任务范式,考察混响和扬声器到听众的距离对聆听努力的影响。对两种分析方法得出的方差分析结果进行了比较。全反应分析法和仅正确分析法得出的结果相似。然而,全反应分析法的效应大小更大,而且还发现了额外的主效应。目前的研究支持使用全反应法,因为它对行为听力变化的敏感度更高。不过,为了达到特定的研究目的,也可以使用只回答正确问题的方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Seminars in Hearing
Seminars in Hearing Health Professions-Speech and Hearing
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
29
期刊介绍: Seminars in Hearing is a quarterly review journal that publishes topic-specific issues in the field of audiology including areas such as hearing loss, auditory disorders and psychoacoustics. The journal presents the latest clinical data, new screening and assessment techniques, along with suggestions for improving patient care in a concise and readable forum. Technological advances with regards to new auditory devices are also featured. The journal"s content is an ideal reference for both the practicing audiologist as well as an excellent educational tool for students who require the latest information on emerging techniques and areas of interest in the field.
期刊最新文献
Errata: Unleashing the Power of Test Box and Real-Ear Probe Microphone Measurement. Chapter 3: Setting the Hearing Aid Response and Verifying Signal Processing and Features in the Test Box Chapter 5: Setting the Hearing Aid Response and Verifying Signal Processing and Features with Real-Ear Probe Microphone Measures Chapter 2: My Hearing Aid Isn't Working Like It Used to… How to Use This Workbook.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1