Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 432

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 77 of the 77 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Cognitive Load During Speech Perception in Noise: The Influence of Age, Hearing Loss, and Cognition on the Pupil Response

Zekveld, Adriana A., Kramer, Sophia E., Festen, Joost M.·2011·Ear & Hearing

Abstract

In Brief Objectives: The aim of the present study was to evaluate the influence of age, hearing loss, and cognitive ability on the cognitive processing load during listening to speech presented in noise. Cognitive load was assessed by means of pupillometry (i.e., examination of pupil dilation), supplemented with subjective ratings. Design: Two groups of subjects participated: 38 middle-aged participants (mean age = 55 yrs) with normal hearing and 36 middle-aged participants (mean age = 61 yrs) with hearing loss. Using three Speech Reception Threshold (SRT) in stationary noise tests, we estimated the speech-to-noise ratios (SNRs) required for the correct repetition of 50%, 71%, or 84% of the sentences (SRT50%, SRT71%, and SRT84%, respectively). We examined the pupil response during listening: the peak amplitude, the peak latency, the mean dilation, and the pupil response duration. For each condition, participants rated the experienced listening effort and estimated their performance level. Participants also performed the Text Reception Threshold (TRT) test, a test of processing speed, and a word vocabulary test. Data were compared with previously published data from young participants with normal hearing. Results: Hearing loss was related to relatively poor SRTs, and higher speech intelligibility was associated with lower effort and higher performance ratings. For listeners with normal hearing, increasing age was associated with poorer TRTs and slower processing speed but with larger word vocabulary. A multivariate repeated-measures analysis of variance indicated main effects of group and SNR and an interaction effect between these factors on the pupil response. The peak latency was relatively short and the mean dilation was relatively small at low intelligibility levels for the middle-aged groups, whereas the reverse was observed for high intelligibility levels. The decrease in the pupil response as a function of increasing SNR was relatively small for the listeners with hearing loss. Spearman correlation coefficients indicated that the cognitive load was larger in listeners with better TRT performances as reflected by a longer peak latency (normal-hearing participants, SRT50% condition) and a larger peak amplitude and longer response duration (hearing-impaired participants, SRT50% and SRT84% conditions). Also, a larger word vocabulary was related to longer response duration in the SRT84% condition for the participants with normal hearing. Conclusions: The pupil response systematically increased with decreasing speech intelligibility. Ageing and hearing loss were related to less release from effort when increasing the intelligibility of speech in noise. In difficult listening conditions, these factors may induce cognitive overload relatively early or they may be associated with relatively shallow speech processing. More research is needed to elucidate the underlying mechanisms explaining these results. Better TRTs and larger word vocabulary were related to higher mental processing load across speech intelligibility levels. This indicates that utilizing linguistic ability to improve speech perception is associated with increased listening load. This study evaluated the relation between age, hearing loss, cognitive abilities, and cognitive processing load during listening. Middle-aged listeners with normal hearing and middle-aged listeners with hearing loss performed speech reception thresholds tests at 50%, 71%, and 84% sentence intelligibility. Cognitive processing load, as measured by the pupil response, systematically increased with decreasing speech intelligibility. Aging and hearing loss were associated with less “release from effort” at increasing speech intelligibility levels. Better linguistic ability was related to higher mental processing load across speech intelligibility levels.

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/aud.0b013e31820512bb

Cites

77 of 77 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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

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

Show all 77 references

Cited by

See all 432

Metadata

Authors
Zekveld, A. A., Kramer, S. E., & Festen, J. M.
Venue
Ear & Hearing
Published
2011-07
Volume
32
Issue
4
Pages
498-510
ISSN
0196-0202 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2162488555
Cited by
432
References
77
FWCI
7.99
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: Cognitive Load During Speech Perception in Noise: The Influence of Age, Hearing Loss, and Cognition on the Pupil Response. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/aud.0b013e31820512bb
The paper
Zekveld, A. A., Kramer, S. E., & Festen, J. M. (2011). Cognitive Load During Speech Perception in Noise: The Influence of Age, Hearing Loss, and Cognition on the Pupil Response. Ear & Hearing. https://doi.org/10.1097/aud.0b013e31820512bb

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.