The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Pupil Response as an Indication of Effortful Listening: The Influence of Sentence Intelligibility
Abstract
In Brief Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of sentence intelligibility on the pupil dilation response during listening. Task-induced pupil-dilation reflects explicit effortful processing load. Therefore, pupillometry can be used to examine the listening effort during speech perception in difficult listening conditions. We expected to find increasing pupil dilation as a function of decreasing speech intelligibility. Design: Thirty-eight young participants (mean age = 23 yrs, SD = 3.2 yrs) with normal hearing were included. They performed three speech reception threshold (SRT) tests in which they listened to sentences in stationary noise. A one-up-one-down, two-up-one-down, or four-up-one-down adaptive procedure was applied, resulting in the correct rehearsal of 50, 71, or 84% of the sentences (SRT50%, SRT71%, and SRT84%, respectively). We examined the peak dilation amplitude, the latency of the peak dilation amplitude, and the mean pupil dilation during the processing of the speech in each of these conditions. The peak dilation amplitude and mean pupil dilation were calculated relative to the baseline pupil diameter during listening to noise alone. For each SRT condition, participants rated the experienced listening effort and estimated their performance level. Results: The signal to noise ratios (SNRs) in the SRT50%, SRT71%, and SRT84% conditions increased as a function of the speech intelligibility level. The subjective effort ratings decreased, and the estimated performance increased with increasing speech intelligibility level. Repeated measures analyses of variance indicated that peak dilation amplitude and mean pupil dilation were higher in the SRT50% condition as compared with the SRT71% and SRT84% conditions. The peak dilation amplitude, mean pupil dilation, and peak latency increased with decreasing SNR of the speech in noise, but no effect of noise level by itself on the baseline pupil diameter was observed. Irrespective of SNR, the pupil response was higher for incorrectly repeated sentences than for correctly repeated sentences. The analyses also indicated condition-order effects on the peak dilation amplitude and mean pupil dilatation: the pupil response was higher in the first SRT test than in the second and third tests. Within the first and third test, the baseline pupil diameter and the mean pupil dilation decreased as a function of the sentence number within the test. Spearman correlation coefficients showed no relations among the SNRs at the SRTs, subjective ratings, and the pupil response. Conclusions: The peak dilation amplitude, peak latency, and mean pupil dilation systematically increase with decreasing speech intelligibility. These results support that listening effort, as indicated by the pupil response, increases with decreasing speech intelligibility. This study indicates that pupillometry can be used to examine how listeners reach a certain performance level. Application of this technique to study listening effort can yield valuable insight into the processing resources required across listening conditions and into the factors related to interindividual differences in speech perception in noise. This study evaluates the pupil dilation response to speech perception in noise as a function of intelligibility by young listeners with normal hearing. The pupil response is an index of task-induced mental effort. The peak pupil dilation and mean dilation are higher for the condition in which 50% of the sentences in noise are intelligible than for conditions resulting in 71% and 84% intelligibility. The peak dilation, peak latency, and mean pupil dilation systematically increase with decreasing speech-to-noise ratio. These results demonstrate the value of measuring pupil response to examine the listening effort required during speech comprehension.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
A capacity theory of comprehension: individual differences in working memory
Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1992) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.99.1.122 · Cited by 4,153
Pupil Diameter and Load on Memory
Kahneman, D., & Beatty, J. (1966) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.154.3756.1583 · Cited by 1,617
How young and old adults listen to and remember speech in noise.
Pichora-Fuller, M. K., Schneider, B. A., & Daneman, M. (1995) · The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · doi:10.1121/1.412282 · Cited by 1,089 · cited 2×
“Speech perception in noise involves complex processing (i.e., both processing and storage of the incoming auditory information; Pichora-Fuller et al. 1995).”
BackgroundAnterior cingulate activity during error and autonomic response
Critchley, H. D., Tang, J., Glaser, D., Butterworth, B., & Dolan, R. J. (2005) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2005.05.047 · Cited by 445
Obleser, J., Wise, R. J. S., Alex Dresner, M., & Scott, S. K. (2007) · The Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.4663-06.2007 · Cited by 354
Mild hearing loss can cause apparent memory failures which increase with age and reduce with IQ
Rabbitt, P. (1991) · Acta Oto-Laryngologica · doi:10.3109/00016489109127274 · Cited by 308
Memory load and the cognitive pupillary response in aging
Van Gerven, P. W. M., Paas, F., Van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Schmidt, H. G. (2004) · Psychophysiology · doi:10.1111/j.1469-8986.2003.00148.x · Cited by 292 · cited 2×
“Among these there are common factors such as age (Tomporowsi 2003; van Gerven et al. 2004), cognitive abilities and IQ (Ahern & Beatty 1979; Zekveld et al. 2009b), and fatigue (Janisse 1977).”
BackgroundTop-down and bottom-up processes in speech comprehension
Zekveld, A. A., Heslenfeld, D. J., Festen, J. M., & Schoonhoven, R. (2006) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2006.04.199 · Cited by 203
Self-citation
Cited by
Hearing Impairment and Cognitive Energy: The Framework for Understanding Effortful Listening (FUEL)
Pichora-Fuller, M. K., Kramer, S. E., Eckert, M. A., Edwards, B., Hornsby, B. W. Y., Humes, L. E., Lemke, U., Lunner, T., Matthen, M., Mackersie, C. L., et al. (2016) · Ear & Hearing · doi:10.1097/aud.0000000000000312 · Cited by 1,318
Self-citationThe Ease of Language Understanding (ELU) model: theoretical, empirical, and clinical advances
Rönnberg, J., Lunner, T., Zekveld, A., Sörqvist, P., Danielsson, H., Lyxell, B., Dahlström, Ö., Signoret, C., Stenfelt, S., Pichora-Fuller, M. K., et al. (2013) · Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnsys.2013.00031 · Cited by 989
Self-citationPeelle, J. E. (2018) · Ear & Hearing · doi:10.1097/aud.0000000000000494 · Cited by 672
Zekveld, A. A., Kramer, S. E., & Festen, J. M. (2011) · Ear & Hearing · doi:10.1097/aud.0b013e31820512bb · Cited by 432
Self-citationWinn, M. B., Wendt, D., Koelewijn, T., & Kuchinsky, S. E. (2018) · Trends in Hearing · doi:10.1177/2331216518800869 · Cited by 339
Metadata
- Authors
- Zekveld, A. A., Kramer, S. E., & Festen, J. M.
- Venue
- Ear & Hearing
- Published
- 2010-08
- Volume
- 31
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 480-490
- ISSN
- 0196-0202 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2017057152
- Cited by
- 437
- References
- 8
- FWCI
- 5.25
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Pupil Response as an Indication of Effortful Listening: The Influence of Sentence Intelligibility. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/aud.0b013e3181d4f251
- The paper
- Zekveld, A. A., Kramer, S. E., & Festen, J. M. (2010). Pupil Response as an Indication of Effortful Listening: The Influence of Sentence Intelligibility. Ear & Hearing. https://doi.org/10.1097/aud.0b013e3181d4f251
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.