CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 672Neurobiology of Language and BilingualismHearing Loss and RehabilitationPhonetics and Phonology Research

Listening Effort: How the Cognitive Consequences of Acoustic Challenge Are Reflected in Brain and Behavior

Open access
Peelle, Jonathan E.·2018·Ear & Hearing
DOI 10.1097/aud.0000000000000494PMC PMC5821557
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Everyday conversation frequently includes challenges to the clarity of the acoustic speech signal, including hearing impairment, background noise, and foreign accents. Although an obvious problem is the increased risk of making word identification errors, extracting meaning from a degraded acoustic signal is also cognitively demanding, which contributes to increased listening effort. The concepts of cognitive demand and listening effort are critical in understanding the challenges listeners face in comprehension, which are not fully predicted by audiometric measures. In this article, the authors review converging behavioral, pupillometric, and neuroimaging evidence that understanding acoustically degraded speech requires additional cognitive support and that this cognitive load can interfere with other operations such as language processing and memory for what has been heard. Behaviorally, acoustic challenge is associated with increased errors in speech understanding, poorer performance on concurrent secondary tasks, more difficulty processing linguistically complex sentences, and reduced memory for verbal material. Measures of pupil dilation support the challenge associated with processing a degraded acoustic signal, indirectly reflecting an increase in neural activity. Finally, functional brain imaging reveals that the neural resources required to understand degraded speech extend beyond traditional perisylvian language networks, most commonly including regions of prefrontal cortex, premotor cortex, and the cingulo-opercular network. Far from being exclusively an auditory problem, acoustic degradation presents listeners with a systems-level challenge that requires the allocation of executive cognitive resources. An important point is that a number of dissociable processes can be engaged to understand degraded speech, including verbal working memory and attention-based performance monitoring. The specific resources required likely differ as a function of the acoustic, linguistic, and cognitive demands of the task, as well as individual differences in listeners’ abilities. A greater appreciation of cognitive contributions to processing degraded speech is critical in understanding individual differences in comprehension ability, variability in the efficacy of assistive devices, and guiding rehabilitation approaches to reducing listening effort and facilitating communication.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/aud.0000000000000494

Cites

11 of 11 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • There is behavioral, pupillometric, and neuroimaging evidence to suggest that cognitive and listener effort increase when listeners are faced with a condition of background noise or a degraded speech signal.

    “There is a plethora of behavioral (Heinrich & Schneider, 2011; Murphy et al., 2000; Pichora-Fuller et al., 1995), pupillometric (Kramer et al., 1997; Zekveld & Kramer, 2014; Zekveld et al., 2010), and neuroimaging (Davis & Johnsrude, 2003) evidence to suggest that cognitive and listener effort increase when listeners are faced with a condition of background noise or a degraded speech signal (Peell”

    From Perception of Physical Demand, Mental Demand, and Performance: A Comparison of Two Voice Interventions for Parkinson's Disease (2022) · cites this paper as Peelle, 2018

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 109

  1. Adank P The neural bases of difficult speech comprehension and speech production: Two Activation Likelihood Estimation (ALE) meta-analyses. Brain Lang, 2012). 122, 42 54. 22633697
  2. Akeroyd M. A Are individual differences in speech reception related to individual differences in cognitive ability? A survey of twenty experimental studies with normal and hearing-impaired adults. Int J Audiol, 2008). 47 (Suppl 2), S53 S71. 19012113
  3. Antzoulatos E. G. Miller E. K Synchronous beta rhythms of frontoparietal networks support only behaviorally relevant representations. eLife, 2016). 5, e17822. 27841747 PMC5148609
  4. Aston-Jones G. Cohen J. D An integrative theory of locus coeruleus-norepinephrine function: Adaptive gain and optimal performance. Annu Rev Neurosci, 2005). 28, 403 450. 16022602
  5. Baddeley A. D Working Memory. 1986). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
  6. Besser J. Zekveld A. A. Kramer S. E. New measures of masked text recognition in relation to speech-in-noise perception and their associations with age and cognitive abilities. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 2012). 55, 194 209. 22199191
  7. Chein J. M. Fiez J. A Evaluating models of working memory through the effects of concurrent irrelevant information. J Exp Psychol Gen, 2010). 139, 117 137. 20121315 PMC2849630
  8. Cousins K. A. Dar H. Wingfield A. Acoustic masking disrupts time-dependent mechanisms of memory encoding in word-list recall. Mem Cognit, 2014). 42, 622 638. PMC4030694 24838269
  9. Crinion J. T. Lambon-Ralph M. A. Warburton E. A. Temporal lobe regions engaged during normal speech comprehension. Brain, 2003). 126(Pt 5), 1193 1201. 12690058
  10. Davis M. H. Ford M. A. Kherif F. Does semantic context benefit speech understanding through “top-down” processes? Evidence from time-resolved sparse fMRI. J Cogn Neurosci, 2011). 23, 3914 3932. 21745006
  11. Davis M. H. Johnsrude I. S Hierarchical processing in spoken language comprehension. J Neurosci, 2003). 23, 3423 3431. 12716950 PMC6742313
  12. Davis M. H. Johnsrude I. S Hearing speech sounds: Top-down influences on the interface between audition and speech perception. Hear Res, 2007). 229, 132 147. 17317056
  13. Dayan E. Cohen L. G Neuroplasticity subserving motor skill learning. Neuron, 2011). 72, 443 454. 22078504 PMC3217208
  14. DeCaro R. Peelle J. E. Grossman M. The two sides of sensory-cognitive interactions: Effects of age, hearing acuity, and working memory span on sentence comprehension. Front Psychol, 2016). 7, 236. 26973557 PMC4770018
  15. Denes P. B. Pinson E. N The Speech Chain: The Physics and Biology of Spoken Language. 1993). Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press, Inc.
  16. Dey A. Sommers M. S Age-related differences in inhibitory control predict audiovisual speech perception. Psychol Aging, 2015). 30, 634 646. 26121287 PMC5757834
  17. Dosenbach N. U. Fair D. A. Cohen A. L. A dual-networks architecture of top-down control. Trends Cogn Sci, 2008). 12, 99 105. 18262825 PMC3632449
  18. Duncan J The multiple-demand (MD) system of the primate brain: Mental programs for intelligent behaviour. Trends Cogn Sci, 2010). 14, 172 179. 20171926
  19. Eckert M. A. Cute S. L. Vaden K. I. Jr Auditory cortex signs of age-related hearing loss. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol, 2012). 13, 703 713. 22618352 PMC3441956
  20. Eckert M. A. Menon V. Walczak A. At the heart of the ventral attention system: The right anterior insula. Hum Brain Mapp, 2009). 30, 2530 2541. 19072895 PMC2712290
  21. Eckert M. A. Teubner-Rhodes S. Vaden K. I. Jr Is listening in noise worth it? The neurobiology of speech recognition in challenging listening conditions. Ear Hear, 2016). 37(Suppl 1), 101S 110S. 27355759 PMC4929997
  22. Erb J. Henry M. J. Eisner F. The brain dynamics of rapid perceptual adaptation to adverse listening conditions. J Neurosci, 2013). 33, 10688 10697. 23804092 PMC6618499
  23. Evans S. Kyong J. S. Rosen S. The pathways for intelligible speech: multivariate and univariate perspectives. Cereb Cortex, 2014). 24, 2350 2361. 23585519 PMC4128702
  24. Evans S. McGettigan C. Agnew Z. K. Getting the cocktail party started: Masking effects in speech perception. J Cogn Neurosci, 2016). 28, 483 500. 26696297 PMC4905511
  25. Gatehouse S. Gordon J Response times to speech stimuli as measures of benefit from amplification. Br J Audiol, 1990). 24, 63 68. 2317602
  26. Grady C The cognitive neuroscience of ageing. Nat Rev Neurosci, 2012). 13, 491 505. 22714020 PMC3800175
  27. Harris K. C. Dubno J. R. Keren N. I. Speech recognition in younger and older adults: A dependency on low-level auditory cortex. J Neurosci, 2009). 29, 6078 6087. 19439585 PMC2717741
  28. Hassanpour M. S. Eggebrecht A. T. Culver J. P. Mapping cortical responses to speech using high-density diffuse optical tomography. Neuroimage, 2015). 117, 319 326. 26026816 PMC4512921
  29. Heinrich A. Schneider B. A Elucidating the effects of ageing on remembering perceptually distorted word pairs. Q J Exp Psychol (Hove), 2011). 64, 186 205. 20694922
  30. Heinrich A. Schneider B. A. Craik F. I Investigating the influence of continuous babble on auditory short-term memory performance. Q J Exp Psychol (Hove), 2008). 61, 735 751. 17853231
  31. Holden L. K. Finley C. C. Firszt J. B. Factors affecting open-set word recognition in adults with cochlear implants. Ear Hear, 2013). 34, 342 360. 23348845 PMC3636188
  32. Hornsby B. W. Naylor G. Bess F. H A taxonomy of fatigue concepts and their relation to hearing loss. Ear Hear, 2016). 37(Suppl 1), 136S 144S. 27355763 PMC4930001
  33. Humes L. E The contributions of audibility and cognitive factors to the benefit provided by amplified speech to older adults. J Am Acad Audiol, 2007). 18, 590 603. 18236646
  34. Humes L. E. Busey T. A. Craig J. Are age-related changes in cognitive function driven by age-related changes in sensory processing? Atten Percept Psychophys, 2013). 75, 508 524. 23254452 PMC3617348
  35. Humes L. E. Kidd G. R. Lentz J. J Auditory and cognitive factors underlying individual differences in aided speech-understanding among older adults. Front Syst Neurosci, 2013). 7, 55. 24098273 PMC3787592
  36. Knight S. Heinrich A Different measures of auditory and visual stroop interference and their relationship to speech intelligibility in noise. Front Psychol, 2017). 8, 230. 28367129 PMC5355492
  37. Koss M. C Pupillary dilation as an index of central nervous system alpha 2-adrenoceptor activation. J Pharmacol Methods, 1986). 15, 1 19. 2869190
  38. Kramer S. E. Kapteyn T. S. Festen J. M. Assessing aspects of auditory handicap by means of pupil dilatation. Audiology, 1997). 36, 155 164. 9193733
  39. Kramer S. E. Zekveld A. A. Houtgast T Measuring cognitive factors in speech comprehension: the value of using the Text Reception Threshold test as a visual equivalent of the SRT test. Scand J Psychol, 2009). 50, 507 515. 19778398
  40. Kuchinsky S. E. Ahlstrom J. B. Vaden K. I. Jr Pupil size varies with word listening and response selection difficulty in older adults with hearing loss. Psychophysiology, 2013). 50, 23 34. 23157603 PMC3527636
  41. Kuchinsky S. E. Vaden K. I. Jr Ahlstrom J. B. Task-related vigilance during word recognition in noise for older adults with hearing loss. Exp Aging Res, 2016). 42, 50 66. 26683041 PMC4702493
  42. Kukla A Foundations of an attributional theory of performance. Psychological Review, 1972). 79, 454 470.
  43. Laeng B. Sirois S. Gredebäck G Pupillometry: A window to the preconscious? Perspect Psychol Sci, 2012). 7, 18 27. 26168419
  44. Lee Y. S. Min N. E. Wingfield A. Acoustic richness modulates the neural networks supporting intelligible speech processing. Hear Res, 2016). 333, 108 117. 26723103 PMC4798890
  45. Leung H. C. Skudlarski P. Gatenby J. C. An event-related functional MRI study of the stroop color word interference task. Cereb Cortex, 2000). 10, 552 560. 10859133
  46. Lin F. R. Ferrucci L. Metter E. J. Hearing loss and cognition in the Baltimore Longitudinal Study of Aging. Neuropsychology, 2011). 25, 763 770. 21728425 PMC3193888
  47. Lin F. R. Metter E. J. O’Brien R. J. Hearing loss and incident dementia. Arch Neurol, 2011). 68, 214 220. 21320988 PMC3277836
  48. Luce P. A. Pisoni D. B Recognizing spoken words: The neighborhood activation model. Ear Hear, 1998). 19, 1 36. 9504270 PMC3467695
  49. Lunner T Cognitive function in relation to hearing aid use. Int J Audiol, 2003). 42(Suppl 1), S49 S58. 12918610
  50. Marslen-Wilson W. Tyler L. K The temporal structure of spoken language understanding. Cognition, 1980). 8, 1 71. 7363578
  51. McCoy S. L. Tun P. A. Cox L. C. Hearing loss and perceptual effort: Downstream effects on older adults’ memory for speech. Q J Exp Psychol A, 2005). 58, 22 33. 15881289
  52. McGettigan C. Evans S. Rosen S. An application of univariate and multivariate approaches in FMRI to quantifying the hemispheric lateralization of acoustic and linguistic processes. J Cogn Neurosci, 2012). 24, 636 652. 22066589 PMC3376446
  53. Miller P. Wingfield A Distinct effects of perceptual quality on auditory word recognition, memory formation and recall in a neural model of sequential memory. Front Syst Neurosci, 2010). 4, 14. 20631822 PMC2901090
  54. Murphy D. R. Craik F. I. M. Li K. Z. H. Comparing the effects of aging and background noise on short-term memory performance. Psychol Aging, 2000). 15, 323 334. 10879586
  55. Neta M. Miezin F. M. Nelson S. M. Spatial and temporal characteristics of error-related activity in the human brain. J Neurosci, 2015). 35, 253 266. 25568119 PMC4287146
  56. Okada K. Rong F. Venezia J. Hierarchical organization of human auditory cortex: Evidence from acoustic invariance in the response to intelligible speech. Cereb Cortex, 2010). 20, 2486 2495. 20100898 PMC2936804
  57. Oswald F. L. McAbee S. T. Redick T. S. The development of a short domain-general measure of working memory capacity. Behav Res Methods, 2015). 47, 1343 1355. 25479734
  58. Peelle J. E The hemispheric lateralization of speech processing depends on what “speech” is: A hierarchical perspective. Front Hum Neurosci, 2012). 6, 309. 23162455 PMC3499798
  59. Peelle J. E Methodological challenges and solutions in auditory functional magnetic resonance imaging. Front Neurosci, 2014). 8, 253. 25191218 PMC4139601
  60. Peelle J. E Optical neuroimaging of spoken language. Lang Cogn Neurosci, 2017). 32, 847 854. PMC6294457 30555845
  61. Peelle J. E. Eason R. J. Schmitter S. Evaluating an acoustically quiet EPI sequence for use in fMRI studies of speech and auditory processing. Neuroimage, 2010). 52, 1410 1419. 20483377 PMC2946564
  62. Peelle J. E. Johnsrude I. S. Davis M. H Hierarchical processing for speech in human auditory cortex and beyond. Front Hum Neurosci, 2010). 4, 51. 20661456 PMC2907234
  63. Peelle J. E. Troiani V. Grossman M. Hearing loss in older adults affects neural systems supporting speech comprehension. J Neurosci, 2011). 31, 12638 12643. 21880924 PMC3175595
  64. Peelle J. E. Troiani V. Wingfield A. Neural processing during older adults’ comprehension of spoken sentences: Age differences in resource allocation and connectivity. Cereb Cortex, 2010). 20, 773 782. 19666829 PMC2837088
  65. Peelle J. E. Wingfield A The neural consequences of age-related hearing loss. Trends Neurosci, 2016). 39, 486 497. 27262177 PMC4930712
  66. Peterson B. S. Skudlarski P. Gatenby J. C. An fMRI study of Stroop word-color interference: Evidence for cingulate subregions subserving multiple distributed attentional systems. Biol Psychiatry, 1999). 45, 1237 1258. 10349031
  67. Pichora-Fuller M. K How social psychological factors may modulate auditory and cognitive functioning during listening. Ear Hear, 2016). 37(Suppl 1), 92S 100S. 27355776
  68. Piquado T. Benichov J. I. Brownell H. The hidden effect of hearing acuity on speech recall, and compensatory effects of self-paced listening. Int J Audiol, 2012). 51, 576 583. 22731919 PMC3632314
  69. Piquado T. Cousins K. A. Wingfield A. Effects of degraded sensory input on memory for speech: Behavioral data and a test of biologically constrained computational models. Brain Res, 2010). 1365, 48 65. 20875801 PMC2993831
  70. Piquado T. Isaacowitz D. Wingfield A Pupillometry as a measure of cognitive effort in younger and older adults. Psychophysiology, 2010). 47, 560 569. 20070575 PMC2867103
  71. Plomp R. Mimpen A. M Speech-reception threshold for sentences as a function of age and noise level. J Acoust Soc Am, 1979). 66, 1333 1342. 500971
  72. Power J. D. Petersen S. E Control-related systems in the human brain. Curr Opin Neurobiol, 2013). 23, 223 228. 23347645 PMC3632325
  73. Rabbitt P. M Channel-capacity, intelligibility and immediate memory. Q J Exp Psychol, 1968). 20, 241 248. 5683763
  74. Richmond L. L. Morrison A. B. Chein J. M. Working memory training and transfer in older adults. Psychol Aging, 2011). 26, 813 822. 21707176
  75. Rodd J. M. Davis M. H. Johnsrude I. S The neural mechanisms of speech comprehension: fMRI studies of semantic ambiguity. Cereb Cortex, 2005). 15, 1261 1269. 15635062
  76. Rodd J. M. Johnsrude I. S. Davis M. H Dissociating frontotemporal contributions to semantic ambiguity resolution in spoken sentences. Cereb Cortex, 2012). 22, 1761 1773. 21968566
  77. Rodd J. M. Longe O. A. Randall B. The functional organisation of the fronto-temporal language system: Evidence from syntactic and semantic ambiguity. Neuropsychologia, 2010). 48, 1324 1335. 20038434
  78. Rönnberg J. Arlinger S. Lyxell B. Visual evoked potentials: Relation to adult speechreading and cognitive function. J Speech Hear Res, 1989). 32, 725 735. 2601304
  79. Rönnberg J. Lunner T. Ng E. H. Hearing impairment, cognition and speech understanding: Exploratory factor analyses of a comprehensive test battery for a group of hearing aid users, the n200 study. Int J Audiol, 2016). 55, 623 642. 27589015 PMC5044772
  80. Rönnberg J. Lunner T. Zekveld A. The ease of language understanding (ELU) model: theoretical, empirical, and clinical advances. Front Syst Neurosci, 2013). 7, 31. 23874273 PMC3710434
  81. Rönnberg J. Rudner M. Foo C. Cognition counts: A working memory system for ease of language understanding (ELU). Int J Audiol, 2008). 47(Suppl 2), S99 105. 19012117
  82. Rudner M. Rönnberg J. Lunner T Working memory supports listening in noise for persons with hearing impairment. J Am Acad Audiol, 2011). 22, 156 167. 21545768
  83. Scott S. K. Blank C. C. Rosen S. Identification of a pathway for intelligible speech in the left temporal lobe. Brain, 2000). 123(Pt 12), 2400 2406. 11099443 PMC5630088
  84. Shannon R. V. Zeng F. G. Kamath V. Speech recognition with primarily temporal cues. Science, 1995). 270, 303 304. 7569981
  85. Signoret C. Johnsrude I. Classon E Combined effects of form- and meaning-based predictability on perceived clarity of speech. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. In press). 28557490
  86. Smith S. L. Pichora-Fuller M. K. Alexander G Development of the word auditory recognition and recall measure: A working memory test for use in rehabilitative audiology. Ear Hear, 2016). 37, e360 e376. 27438869
  87. Smoorenburg G. F Speech reception in quiet and in noisy conditions by individuals with noise-induced hearing loss in relation to their tone audiogram. J Acoust Soc Am, 1992). 91, 421 437. 1737889
  88. Sommers M. S The structural organization of the mental lexicon and its contribution to age-related declines in spoken-word recognition. Psychol Aging, 1996). 11, 333 341. 8795062
  89. Sommers M. S. Danielson S. M Inhibitory processes and spoken word recognition in young and older adults: The interaction of lexical competition and semantic context. Psychol Aging, 1999). 14, 458 472. 10509700
  90. Stokes M. G. Kusunoki M. Sigala N. Dynamic coding for cognitive control in prefrontal cortex. Neuron, 2013). 78, 364 375. 23562541 PMC3898895
  91. Taler V. Aaron G. P. Steinmetz L. G. Lexical neighborhood density effects on spoken word recognition and production in healthy aging. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci, 2010). 65, 551 560. 20542997 PMC2920945
  92. Tyler L. K. Shafto M. A. Randall B. Preserving syntactic processing across the adult life span: The modulation of the frontotemporal language system in the context of age-related atrophy. Cereb Cortex, 2010). 20, 352 364. 19505991 PMC2803734
  93. Vaden K. I. Jr Kuchinsky S. E. Ahlstrom J. B. Cortical activity predicts which older adults recognize speech in noise and when. J Neurosci, 2015). 35, 3929 3937. 25740521 PMC4348188
  94. Vaden K. I. Jr Kuchinsky S. E. Ahlstrom J. B. Cingulo-opercular function during word recognition in noise for older adults with hearing loss. Exp Aging Res, 2016). 42, 67 82. 26683042 PMC4899824
  95. Vaden K. I. Jr Kuchinsky S. E. Cute S. L. The cingulo-opercular network provides word-recognition benefit. J Neurosci, 2013). 33, 18979 18986. 24285902 PMC3841458
  96. Vaden K. I. Jr Teubner-Rhodes S. Ahlstrom J. B. Cingulo-opercular activity affects incidental memory encoding for speech in noise. Neuroimage, 2017). 157, 381 387. 28624645 PMC5600838
  97. Van Engen K. J. Peelle J. E Listening effort and accented speech. Front Hum Neurosci, 2014). 8, 577. 25140140 PMC4122174
  98. Ward C. M. Rogers C. S. Van Engen K. J. Effects of age, acoustic challenge, and verbal working memory on recall of narrative speech. Exp Aging Res, 2016). 42, 126 144. PMC5096888 26683044
  99. Wild C. J. Davis M. H. Johnsrude I. S Human auditory cortex is sensitive to the perceived clarity of speech. Neuroimage, 2012). 60, 1490 1502. 22248574
  100. Wild C. J. Yusuf A. Wilson D. E. Effortful listening: The processing of degraded speech depends critically on attention. J Neurosci, 2012). 32, 14010 14021. 23035108 PMC6704770
  101. Wingfield A Evolution of models of working memory and cognitive resources. Ear Hear, 2016). 37(Suppl 1), 35S 43S. 27355768
  102. Wingfield A. Amichetti N. M. Lash A Cognitive aging and hearing acuity: Modeling spoken language comprehension. Front Psychol, 2015). 6, 684. 26124724 PMC4462993
  103. Wingfield A. Grossman M Language and the aging brain: Patterns of neural compensation revealed by functional brain imaging. J Neurophysiol, 2006). 96, 2830 2839. 17110737
  104. Wingfield A. McCoy S. L. Peelle J. E. Effects of adult aging and hearing loss on comprehension of rapid speech varying in syntactic complexity. J Am Acad Audiol, 2006). 17, 487 497. 16927513
  105. Wingfield A. Tun P. A. Koh C. K. Regaining lost time: Adult aging and the effect of time restoration on recall of time-compressed speech. Psychol Aging, 1999). 14, 380 389. 10509694
  106. Zekveld A. A. George E. L. Kramer S. E. The development of the text reception threshold test: A visual analogue of the speech reception threshold test. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 2007). 50, 576 584. 17538101
  107. Zekveld A. A. Kramer S. E Cognitive processing load across a wide range of listening conditions: Insights from pupillometry. Psychophysiology, 2014). 51, 277 284. 24506437
  108. Zekveld A. A. Kramer S. E. Festen J. M Pupil response as an indication of effortful listening: The influence of sentence intelligibility. Ear Hear, 2010). 31, 480 490. 20588118
  109. Zekveld A. A. Kramer S. E. Festen J. M Cognitive load during speech perception in noise: The influence of age, hearing loss, and cognition on the pupil response. Ear Hear, 2011). 32, 498 510. 21233711

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Peelle, J. E.
Affiliations
Washington University in St. Louis (US)
Corresponding author
Peelle, Jonathan E.
ORCID
Peelle, Jonathan E.
Venue
Ear & Hearing
Publisher
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Published
2018-03
Volume
39
Issue
2
Pages
204-214
ISSN
0196-0202 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1097/aud.0000000000000494
PMC
PMC5821557
OpenAlex
W2757633771
Cited by
672
References
11
Citations by year
2026: 85 · 2025: 96 · 2024: 94 · 2023: 85 · 2022: 89 · 2021: 91 · 2020: 68 · 2019: 44 · 2018: 20
FWCI
4.04
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Ear and Hearing (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Institute on Aging (R01AG038490)
  • National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (R01DC014281, R21DC015884)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Hearing Loss and Rehabilitation
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Phonetics and Phonology Research
Keywords
listening effort, cognitive demand, pupillometry, functional neuroimaging, prefrontal cortex, cingulo-opercular network, executive function, verbal working memory, performance monitoring, sentence comprehension, hearing loss, background noise, foreign accent, assistive listening devices, rehabilitation
MeSH terms
Cognition, Humans, Memory, Short-Term, Speech Perception, Neuroimaging

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review