探讨成人和儿童听力努力测量之间的相关性:基于叙事综合的系统评价。

IF 2.6 2区 医学 Q1 AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY Trends in Hearing Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI:10.1177/23312165221137116
Callum Shields, Mark Sladen, Iain Alexander Bruce, Karolina Kluk, Jaya Nichani
{"title":"探讨成人和儿童听力努力测量之间的相关性:基于叙事综合的系统评价。","authors":"Callum Shields,&nbsp;Mark Sladen,&nbsp;Iain Alexander Bruce,&nbsp;Karolina Kluk,&nbsp;Jaya Nichani","doi":"10.1177/23312165221137116","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Listening effort (LE) describes the cognitive resources needed to process an auditory message. Our understanding of this notion remains in its infancy, hindering our ability to appreciate how it impacts individuals with hearing impairment effectively. Despite the myriad of proposed measurement tools, a validated method remains elusive. This is complicated by the seeming lack of association between tools demonstrated via correlational analyses. This review aims to systematically review the literature relating to the correlational analyses between different measures of LE. Five databases were used- PubMed, Cochrane, EMBASE, PsychINFO, and CINAHL. The quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE criteria and risk of bias with ROBINS-I/GRADE tools. Each statistically significant analysis was classified using an approved system for medical correlations. The final analyses included 48 papers, equating to 274 correlational analyses, of which 99 reached statistical significance (36.1%). Within these results, the most prevalent classifications were poor or fair. Moreover, when moderate or very strong correlations were observed, they tended to be dependent on experimental conditions. The quality of evidence was graded as very low. These results show that measures of LE are poorly correlated and supports the multi-dimensional concept of LE. The lack of association may be explained by considering where each measure operates along the effort perception pathway. Moreover, the fragility of significant correlations to specific conditions further diminishes the hope of finding an all-encompassing tool. Therefore, it may be prudent to focus on capturing the consequences of LE rather than the notion itself.</p>","PeriodicalId":48678,"journal":{"name":"Trends in Hearing","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/36/3c/10.1177_23312165221137116.PMC9982391.pdf","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Exploring the Correlations Between Measures of Listening Effort in Adults and Children: A Systematic Review with Narrative Synthesis.\",\"authors\":\"Callum Shields,&nbsp;Mark Sladen,&nbsp;Iain Alexander Bruce,&nbsp;Karolina Kluk,&nbsp;Jaya Nichani\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/23312165221137116\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Listening effort (LE) describes the cognitive resources needed to process an auditory message. Our understanding of this notion remains in its infancy, hindering our ability to appreciate how it impacts individuals with hearing impairment effectively. Despite the myriad of proposed measurement tools, a validated method remains elusive. This is complicated by the seeming lack of association between tools demonstrated via correlational analyses. This review aims to systematically review the literature relating to the correlational analyses between different measures of LE. Five databases were used- PubMed, Cochrane, EMBASE, PsychINFO, and CINAHL. The quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE criteria and risk of bias with ROBINS-I/GRADE tools. Each statistically significant analysis was classified using an approved system for medical correlations. The final analyses included 48 papers, equating to 274 correlational analyses, of which 99 reached statistical significance (36.1%). Within these results, the most prevalent classifications were poor or fair. Moreover, when moderate or very strong correlations were observed, they tended to be dependent on experimental conditions. The quality of evidence was graded as very low. These results show that measures of LE are poorly correlated and supports the multi-dimensional concept of LE. The lack of association may be explained by considering where each measure operates along the effort perception pathway. Moreover, the fragility of significant correlations to specific conditions further diminishes the hope of finding an all-encompassing tool. Therefore, it may be prudent to focus on capturing the consequences of LE rather than the notion itself.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48678,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Trends in Hearing\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/36/3c/10.1177_23312165221137116.PMC9982391.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Trends in Hearing\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/23312165221137116\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Trends in Hearing","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/23312165221137116","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

听力努力(LE)描述了处理听觉信息所需的认知资源。我们对这一概念的理解仍处于起步阶段,阻碍了我们理解它如何有效影响听力障碍患者的能力。尽管提出了无数的测量工具,一个有效的方法仍然是难以捉摸的。通过相关分析证明的工具之间似乎缺乏关联,这使情况变得复杂。本文旨在系统地回顾与不同测量方法之间的相关性分析相关的文献。使用了5个数据库:PubMed、Cochrane、EMBASE、PsychINFO和CINAHL。使用GRADE标准评估证据质量,使用ROBINS-I/GRADE工具评估偏倚风险。使用经批准的医学相关性系统对每个具有统计意义的分析进行分类。最终纳入48篇论文,共274篇相关分析,其中99篇达到统计学显著性(36.1%)。在这些结果中,最普遍的分类是差或公平。此外,当观察到中等或非常强的相关性时,它们往往依赖于实验条件。证据的质量被评为非常低。这些结果表明,衡量LE的指标相关性较差,支持了LE的多维概念。缺乏关联可以通过考虑每个测量在努力感知路径上的操作来解释。此外,显著相关性对特定条件的脆弱性进一步降低了找到一个包罗万象的工具的希望。因此,关注LE的结果而不是概念本身可能是明智的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

摘要图片

摘要图片

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
Exploring the Correlations Between Measures of Listening Effort in Adults and Children: A Systematic Review with Narrative Synthesis.

Listening effort (LE) describes the cognitive resources needed to process an auditory message. Our understanding of this notion remains in its infancy, hindering our ability to appreciate how it impacts individuals with hearing impairment effectively. Despite the myriad of proposed measurement tools, a validated method remains elusive. This is complicated by the seeming lack of association between tools demonstrated via correlational analyses. This review aims to systematically review the literature relating to the correlational analyses between different measures of LE. Five databases were used- PubMed, Cochrane, EMBASE, PsychINFO, and CINAHL. The quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE criteria and risk of bias with ROBINS-I/GRADE tools. Each statistically significant analysis was classified using an approved system for medical correlations. The final analyses included 48 papers, equating to 274 correlational analyses, of which 99 reached statistical significance (36.1%). Within these results, the most prevalent classifications were poor or fair. Moreover, when moderate or very strong correlations were observed, they tended to be dependent on experimental conditions. The quality of evidence was graded as very low. These results show that measures of LE are poorly correlated and supports the multi-dimensional concept of LE. The lack of association may be explained by considering where each measure operates along the effort perception pathway. Moreover, the fragility of significant correlations to specific conditions further diminishes the hope of finding an all-encompassing tool. Therefore, it may be prudent to focus on capturing the consequences of LE rather than the notion itself.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Trends in Hearing
Trends in Hearing AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGYOTORH-OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
11.10%
发文量
44
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: Trends in Hearing is an open access journal completely dedicated to publishing original research and reviews focusing on human hearing, hearing loss, hearing aids, auditory implants, and aural rehabilitation. Under its former name, Trends in Amplification, the journal established itself as a forum for concise explorations of all areas of translational hearing research by leaders in the field. Trends in Hearing has now expanded its focus to include original research articles, with the goal of becoming the premier venue for research related to human hearing and hearing loss.
期刊最新文献
Adaptation to Noise in Spectrotemporal Modulation Detection and Word Recognition On the Feasibility of Using Behavioral Listening Effort Test Methods to Evaluate Auditory Performance in Cochlear Implant Users Focusing on Positive Listening Experiences Improves Speech Intelligibility in Experienced Hearing Aid Users (Why) Do Transparent Hearing Devices Impair Speech Perception in Collocated Noise? Remixing Preferences for Western Instrumental Classical Music of Bilateral Cochlear Implant Users
×
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