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
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.
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
Applied Multivariate Statistics for the Social Sciences
Stevens, J. P. (2012) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9780203843130 · Cited by 10,648
Shiffrin, R. M., & Schneider, W. (1977) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.84.2.127 · Cited by 7,335
International Organization for Standardization
(2015) · Encyclopedia of Astrobiology · doi:10.1007/978-3-662-44185-5_100574 · Cited by 6,716
Transformed Up-Down Methods in Psychoacoustics
Levitt, H. (1971) · The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · doi:10.1121/1.1912375 · Cited by 5,477
Manual for the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale.
Wechsler, D. (1955) · Psychological Corp. eBooks · Cited by 4,941
Aston-Jones, G., & Cohen, J. D. (2005) · Annual Review of Neuroscience · doi:10.1146/annurev.neuro.28.061604.135709 · Cited by 4,472
Task-evoked pupillary responses, processing load, and the structure of processing resources.
Beatty, J. (1982) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.91.2.276 · Cited by 1,959
A controlled-attention view of working-memory capacity.
Kane, M. J., Bleckley, M. K., Conway, A. R. A., & Engle, R. W. (2001) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: General · doi:10.1037/0096-3445.130.2.169 · Cited by 1,414
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×
“Word Vocabulary Test • Ageing is associated with a larger word vocabulary (Henry et al. 2004), which may help elderly listeners to compensate for some of the speech comprehension difficulties caused by background noise or hearing loss (Wingfield et al. 1991; Pichora-Fuller et al. 1995).”
BackgroundMeaning, Use, and Interpretation of Language
(1983) · De Gruyter eBooks · doi:10.1515/9783110852820 · Cited by 948
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-citationPeelle, J. E. (2018) · Ear & Hearing · doi:10.1097/aud.0000000000000494 · Cited by 672
Sensory-cognitive interactions in older adults
Humes, L. E., & Young, L. A. (2016) · Ear & Hearing · doi:10.1097/aud.0000000000000303 · Cited by 94
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.