CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 77Phonetics and Phonology ResearchNeurobiology of Language and BilingualismHearing Loss and Rehabilitation

Pupil Dilation Is Sensitive to Semantic Ambiguity and Acoustic Degradation

Open access
Kadem, Mason, Herrmann, Björn, Rodd, Jennifer M., Johnsrude, Ingrid S.·2020·Trends in Hearing
DOI 10.1177/2331216520964068PMC PMC7607724
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Speech comprehension is challenged by background noise, acoustic interference, and linguistic factors, such as the presence of words with more than one meaning (homonyms and homophones). Previous work suggests that homophony in spoken language increases cognitive demand. Here, we measured pupil dilation—a physiological index of cognitive demand—while listeners heard high-ambiguity sentences, containing words with more than one meaning, or well-matched low-ambiguity sentences without ambiguous words. This semantic-ambiguity manipulation was crossed with an acoustic manipulation in two experiments. In Experiment 1, sentences were masked with 30-talker babble at 0 and +6 dB signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), and in Experiment 2, sentences were heard with or without a pink noise masker at –2 dB SNR. Speech comprehension was measured by asking listeners to judge the semantic relatedness of a visual probe word to the previous sentence. In both experiments, comprehension was lower for high- than for low-ambiguity sentences when SNRs were low. Pupils dilated more when sentences included ambiguous words, even when no noise was added (Experiment 2). Pupil also dilated more when SNRs were low. The effect of masking was larger than the effect of ambiguity for performance and pupil responses. This work demonstrates that the presence of homophones, a condition that is ubiquitous in natural language, increases cognitive demand and reduces intelligibility of speech heard with a noisy background.

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 · 10.1177/2331216520964068

Cites

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?

  • Pupil dilation increases in response to lexical ambiguities in text, even when participants do not consciously perceive these ambiguities.

    “For example, pupil dilation increases in response to lexical ambiguities in text, even when participants do not consciously perceive these ambiguities (Kadem et al. 2020).”

    From Human-Clinical AI Agent Collaboration (2025) · cites this paper as Kadem et al. 2020

    The Conclusions (page unavailable) report greater pupil dilation when listeners heard spoken sentences containing homophones. The Methods describe auditory, not written, sentences and a semantic-relatedness task; the paper does not establish that participants failed to consciously perceive the ambiguities. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Pupillometry can detect increased processing demands from subtle linguistic challenges during comprehension.

    “Our prior work demonstrates that pupillometry can detect increased processing demands from subtle linguistic challenges during comprehension.”

    From Human-Clinical AI Agent Collaboration (2025) · cites this paper as Kadem et al. 2020

Self-check

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

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

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 84 · Cited by 77

Research works printed but not linked: 77

  1. Alhanbali S. Dawes P. Lloyd S. Munro K. J. (2017). Self-reported listening-related effort and fatigue in hearing-impaired adults. Ear & Hearing, 38, e39– e48. 10.1097/aud.0000000000000361 27541332 · DOI
  2. Alhanbali S. Dawes P. Millman R. E. Munro K. J. (2019). Measures of listening effort are multidimensional. Ear & Hearing, 40, 1084– 1097. 10.1097/AUD.0000000000000697 30747742 PMC7664710 · DOI
  3. Ayasse N. D. Wingfield A. (2018). A tipping point in listening effort: Effects of linguistic complexity and age-related hearing loss on sentence comprehension. Trends in Hearing, 22, 2331216518790907 10.1177/2331216518790907 30235973 PMC6154259 · DOI
  4. Banh J. Singh G. Pichora-Fuller M. K. (2012). Age affects responses on the Speech, Spatial, and Qualities of Hearing Scale (SSQ) by adults with minimal audiometric loss. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 23, 81– 91. 10.3766/jaaa.23.2.2 22353676 · DOI
  5. Beatty J. (1982). Task-evoked pupillary responses, processing load, and the structure of processing resources. Psychological Bulletin, 91, 276– 292. 10.1037/0033-2909.91.2.276 7071262 · DOI · Paper page
  6. Borghini G. Hazan V. (2018). Listening effort during sentence processing is increased for non-native listeners: A pupillometry study. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 12, Article 152. 10.3389/fnins.2018.00152 PMC5859302 29593489 · DOI
  7. Chapman L. R. Hallowell B. (2015). A novel pupillometric method for indexing word difficulty in individuals with and without aphasia. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 58, 1508– 1520. 10.1044/2015_JSLHR-L-14-0287 PMC4686311 26163655 · DOI
  8. Cherry E. C. (1953). Some experiments on the recognition of speech, with one and with two ears. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 25, 975– 979. 10.1121/1.1907229 · DOI
  9. Dalmaso M. Castelli L. Scatturin P. Galfano G. (2017). Working memory load modulates microsaccadic rate. Journal of Vision, 17, 6 10.1167/17.3.6 28278311 · DOI
  10. Davis M. H. Ford M. A. Kherif F. Johnsrude I. S. (2011). Does semantic context benefit speech understanding through “top-down” processes? Evidence from time-resolved sparse fMRI Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23, 3914– 3932. 10.1162/jocn_a_00084 21745006 · DOI
  11. Durlach N. I. Mason C. R. Kidd G. Arbogast T. L. Colburn H. S. Shinn-Cunningham B. G. (2003). Note on informational masking (L). The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 113, 2984– 2987. 10.1121/1.1570435 12822768 · DOI
  12. Eckert M. A. Teubner-Rhodes S. Vaden K.I. Jr. (2016). Is listening in noise worth it? The neurobiology of speech recognition in challenging listening conditions. Ear & Hearing, 37, 101S– 110S. 10.1097/AUD.0000000000000300 27355759 PMC4929997 · DOI
  13. Engbert R. (2006). A microcosm for research on oculomotor control, attention, and visual perception. Progress in Brain Research, 154, 177– 192. 10.1016/S0079-6123(06)54009-9 17010710 · DOI
  14. Engbert R. Kliegl R. (2003). Microsaccades uncover the orientation of covert attention. Vision Research, 43, 1035– 1045. 10.1016/S0042-6989(03)00084-1 12676246 · DOI · Paper page
  15. Gatehouse S. Noble W. (2004). The speech, spatial and qualities of hearing scale (SSQ). International Journal of Audiology, 43, 85– 99. 10.1080/14992020400050014 15035561 PMC5593096 · DOI
  16. Gibson E. (1998). Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition, 68, 1– 76. 10.1016/s0010-0277(98)00034-1 9775516 · DOI · Paper page
  17. Gibson E. Pearlmutter N. J. (1998). Constraints on sentence comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2, 262– 268. 10.1016/S1364-6613(98)01187-5 21244925 · DOI
  18. Herrmann B. Johnsrude I. S. (2018). Attentional state modulates the effect of an irrelevant stimulus dimension on perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 44, 89– 105. 10.1037/xhp0000432 28447846 · DOI
  19. Herrmann B. Johnsrude I. S. (2020). A model of listening engagement (MoLE). Hearing Research Advance online publication. 10.1016/j.heares.2020.108016 32680706 · DOI
  20. Hicks C. B. Tharpe A. M. (2002). Listening effort and fatigue in school-age children with and without hearing loss. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 45, 573– 584. 10.1044/1092-4388(2002/046) 12069009 · DOI
  21. Hornsby B. W. (2013). The effects of hearing aid use on listening effort and mental fatigue associated with sustained speech processing demands. Ear & Hearing, 34, 523– 534. 10.1097/AUD.0b013e31828003d8 23426091 · DOI
  22. Johnsrude I. S. Mackey A. Hakyemez H. Alexander E. Trang H. P. Carlyon R. P. (2013). Swinging at a cocktail party: Voice familiarity aids speech perception in the presence of a competing voice. Psychological Science, 24, 1995– 2004. 10.1177/0956797613482467 23985575 · DOI
  23. Johnsrude I. S. Rodd J. M. (2016). Factors that increase processing demands when listening to speech In Hickok G. Small S. L. (Eds.), Neurobiology of language (pp. 491– 502). Elsevier Academic Press.
  24. Kidd G. Jr. Mason C. R. Richards V. M. Gallun F. J. Durlach N. I. (2008). Informational masking In Yost W. A. Popper A. N. Fay R. R. (Eds.), Auditory perception of sound sources. Springer handbook of auditory research (pp. 143– 189). Springer.
  25. Knapen T. de Gee J. W. Brascamp J. Nuiten S. Hoppenbrouwers S. Theeuwes J. (2016). Cognitive and ocular factors jointly determine pupil responses under equiluminance. PLoS One, 11, e0155574 10.1371/journal.pone.0155574 27191166 PMC4871560 · DOI
  26. Koelewijn T. Versfeld N. J. Kramer S. E. (2017). Effects of attention on the speech reception threshold and pupil response of people with impaired and normal hearing. Hearing Research, 354, 56– 63. 10.1016/j.heares.2017.08.006 28869841 · DOI
  27. Koelewijn T. Zekveld A. A. Festen J. M. Kramer S. E. (2012). Pupil dilation uncovers extra listening effort in the presence of a single-talker masker. Ear & Hearing, 32, 291– 300. 10.1097/AUD.0b013e3182310019 21921797 · DOI
  28. Koelewijn T. Zekveld A. A. Festen J. M. Kramer S. E. (2014). The influence of informational masking on speech perception and pupil response in adults with hearing impairment. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 135, 1596– 1606. 10.1121/1.4863198 24606294 · DOI
  29. Koeritzer M. A. Rogers C. S. Van Engen K. J. Peelle J. E. (2018). The impact of age, background noise, semantic ambiguity, and hearing loss on recognition memory for spoken sentences. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 61, 740– 751. 10.1044/2017_JSLHR-H-17-0077 PMC5963044 29450493 · DOI
  30. Kramer S. E. Kapteyn T. S. Festen J. M. Kuik D. J. (1997). Assessing aspects of auditory handicap by means of pupil dilatation. Audiology, 36, 155– 164. 10.3109/00206099709071969 9193733 · DOI
  31. Krueger M. Schulte M. Brand T. Holube I. (2017). Development of an adaptive scaling method for subjective listening effort. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 141, 4680– 4693. 10.1121/1.4986938 28679238 · DOI
  32. Kuchinke L. Võ M.L.-H. Hofmann M. Jacobs A. M. (2007). Pupillary responses during lexical decisions vary with word frequency but not emotional valence. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 65, 132– 140. 10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2007.04.004 17532075 · DOI
  33. Kuchinsky S. E. Ahlstrom J. B. Vaden K. I. Jr. Cute S. L. Humes L. E. Dubno J. R. Eckert M. A. (2013). Pupil size varies with word listening and response selection difficulty in older adults with hearing loss. Psychophysiology, 50, 23– 34. 10.1111/j.1469-8986.2012.01477.x 23157603 PMC3527636 · DOI
  34. Larsby B. Hällgren M. Lyxell B. Arlinger S. (2005). Cognitive performance and perceived effort in speech processing tasks: Effects of different noise backgrounds in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired subjects. International Journal of Audiology, 44, 131– 143. 10.1080/14992020500057244 15916114 · DOI
  35. Lemke U. Besser J. (2016). Cognitive load and listening effort: Concepts and age-related considerations. Ear & Hearing, 37, 77S– 84S. 10.1097/AUD.0000000000000304 27355774 · DOI
  36. Mackersie C. L. Cones H. (2011). Subjective and psychophysiological indices of listening effort in a competing-talker task. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 22, 113– 122. 10.3766/jaaa.22.2.6 21463566 PMC3072569 · DOI
  37. Martinez-Conde S. Macknik S. L. Troncoso X. G. Hubel D. H. (2009). Microsaccades: A neurophysiological analysis. Trends in Neurosciences, 32, 463– 475. 10.1016/j.tins.2009.05.006 19716186 · DOI
  38. Martinez-Conde S. Otero-Millan J. Macknik S. L. (2013). The impact of microsaccades on vision: Towards a unified theory of saccadic function. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 14, 83– 96. 10.1038/nrn3405 23329159 · DOI
  39. Mathôt S. Fabius J. Van Heusden E. Van der Stigchel S. (2018). Safe and sensible preprocessing and baseline correction of pupil-size data. Behavior Research Methods, 50, 94– 106. 10.3758/s13428-017-1007-2 29330763 PMC5809553 · DOI
  40. McIntire L. K. McIntire J. P. McKinley R. A. Goodyear C. (2014). Detection of vigilance performance with pupillometry. In Symposium on eye tracking research and applications (pp. 167–174). ACM. 10.1145/2578153.2578177 · DOI
  41. Miles K. McMahon C. Boisvert I. Ibrahim R. de Lissa P. Graham P. Lyxell B. (2017). Objective assessment of listening effort: Coregistration of pupillometry and EEG. Trends in Hearing, 21, 1– 13. 10.1177/2331216517706396 PMC5536372 28752807 · DOI
  42. Miller G. A. (1947). The masking of speech. Psychological Bulletin, 44, 105– 129. 10.1037/h0055960 20288932 · DOI
  43. Müller J. A. Wendt D. Kollmeier B. Debener S. Brand T. (2019). Effect of speech rate on neural tracking of speech. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, Article 449. 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00449 PMC6418035 30906273 · DOI
  44. Nachtegaal J. Smit J. H. Smits C. Bezemer P. D. van Beek J. H. Festen J. M. Kramer S. E. (2009). The association between hearing status and psychosocial health before the age of 70 years: Results from an internet-based national survey on hearing. Ear & Hearing, 30, 302– 312. 10.1097/AUD.0b013e31819c6e01 19322094 · DOI
  45. Ohlenforst B. Wendt D. Kramer S. E. Naylor G. Zekveld A. A. Lunner T. (2018). Impact of SNR, masker type and noise reduction processing on sentence recognition performance and listening effort as indicated by the pupil dilation response. Hearing Research, 365, 90–99. 10.1016/j.heares.2018.05.003 29779607 · DOI
  46. Ohlenforst B. Zekveld A. A. Lunner T. Wendt D. Naylor G. Wang Y. Versfeld N. J. Kramer S. E. (2017). Impact of stimulus-related factors and hearing impairment on listening effort as indicated by pupil dilation. Hearing Research, 351, 68– 79. 10.1016/j.heares.2017.05.012 28622894 · DOI
  47. Peelle J. E. (2018). Listening effort: How the cognitive consequences of acoustic challenge are reflected in brain and behavior. Ear & Hearing, 39, 204– 214. 10.1097/AUD.0000000000000494 28938250 PMC5821557 · DOI · Paper page
  48. Rodd J. M. (in press). Settling into semantic space: An ambiguity-focused account of word-meaning access. Perspectives on Psychological Science 10.1177/1745691619885860 31961780 · DOI
  49. Rodd J. M. Davis M. H. Johnsrude I. S. (2005). The neural mechanisms of speech comprehension: fMRI studies of semantic ambiguity. Cerebral Cortex, 15, 1261– 1269. 10.1093/cercor/bhi009 15635062 · DOI
  50. Rodd J. M. Johnsrude I. S. Davis M. H. (2010a). The role of domain-general frontal systems in language comprehension: Evidence from dual-task interference and semantic ambiguity. Brain and Language, 115, 182– 188. 10.1016/j.bandl.2010.07.005 20709385 · DOI
  51. Rodd J. M. Johnsrude I. S. Davis M. H. (2012). Dissociating frontotemporal contributions to semantic ambiguity resolution in spoken sentences. Cerebral Cortex, 22, 1761– 1773. 10.1093/cercor/bhr252 21968566 · DOI
  52. Rodd J. M. Longe O. A. Randall B. Tyler L. K. (2010b). The functional organisation of the fronto-temporal language system: Evidence from syntactic and semantic ambiguity. Neuropsychologia, 448, 1324– 1335. 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2009.12.035 20038434 · DOI
  53. Rodd J. M. Vitello S. Woollams A. M. Adank P. (2015). Localising semantic and syntactic processing in spoken and written language comprehension: An activation likelihood estimation meta-analysis. Brain and Language, 141, 89– 102. 10.1016/j.bandl.2014.11.012 25576690 · DOI
  54. Rolfs M. Engbert R. Kliegl R. (2005). Crossmodal coupling of oculomotor control and spatial attention in vision and audition. Experimental Brain Research, 166, 427– 439. 10.1007/s00221-005-2382-y 16032403 · DOI
  55. Rolfs M. Kliegl R. Engbert R. (2008). Toward a model of microsaccade generation: The case of microsaccadic inhibition. Journal of Vision, 8, 1– 23. 10.1167/8.11.5 18831599 · DOI
  56. Schmidtke J. (2018). Pupillometry in linguistic research: An introduction and review for second language researchers. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 40, 529– 549. 10.1017/S0272263117000195 · DOI
  57. Schneider B. A. Li L. Daneman M. (2007). How competing speech interferes with speech comprehension in everyday listening situations. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 18, 559– 572. 10.3766/jaaa.18.7.4 18236644 · DOI
  58. Shinn-Cunningham B. G. (2008). Object-based auditory and visual attention. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12, 182– 186. 10.1016/j.tics.2008.02.003 18396091 PMC2699558 · DOI
  59. Siegenthaler E. Costela F. M. McCamy M. B. Di Stasi L. L. Otero-Millan J. Sonderegger A. Groner R. Macknik S. Martinez-Conde S. (2014). Task difficulty in mental arithmetic affects microsaccadic rates and magnitudes. European Journal of Neuroscience, 39, 287– 294. 10.1111/ejn.12395 24438491 · DOI
  60. Sirois S. Brisson J. (2014). Pupillometry. WIREs Cognitive Science, 5, 679– 692. 10.1002/wcs.1323 26308873 · DOI
  61. Strand J. F. Brown V. A. Merchant M. B. Brown H. E. Smith J. (2018). Measuring listening effort: Convergent validity, sensitivity, and links with cognitive and personality measures. Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research, 61, 1463– 1486. 10.1044/2018_JSLHR-H-17-0257 29800081 · DOI
  62. Strauss D. J. Francis A. L. (2017). Toward a taxonomic model of attention in effortful listening. Cognitive, Affective & Behavioral Neuroscience, 17, 809– 825. 10.3758/s13415-017-0513-0 PMC5548861 28567568 · DOI
  63. Van Hedger S. C. Johnsrude I. S. (in press). Speech perception under adverse listening conditions. In A. C. Popper (Ed.), Springer handbook of auditory research. Springer.
  64. Wagner K. Josvassen J. L. Ardenkjær R. (2003). Design, optimization and evaluation of a Danish sentence test in noise. International Journal of Audiology, 42, 10– 17. 10.3109/14992020309056080 12564511 · DOI
  65. Wang Y. Naylor G. Kramer S. E. Zekveld A. A. Wendt D. Ohlenforst B. Lunner T. (2018). Relations between self-reported daily-life fatigue, hearing status, and pupil dilation during a speech perception in noise task. Ear & Hearing, 39, 573– 582. 10.1097/AUD.0000000000000512 29117062 PMC7664454 · DOI
  66. Wendt D. Dau T. Hjortkjær J. (2016). Impact of background noise and sentence complexity on processing demands during sentence comprehension. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, Article 345 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00345 27014152 PMC4785151 · DOI
  67. Wendt D. Koelewijn T. Książek P. Kramer S. E. Lunner T. (2018). Toward a more comprehensive understanding of the impact of masker type and signal-to-noise ratio on the pupillary response while performing a speech-in-noise test. Hearing Research, 369, 67– 78. 10.1016/j.heares.2018.05.006 29858121 · DOI
  68. Widmann A. Engbert R. Schröger E. (2014). Microsaccadic responses indicate fast categorization of sounds: A novel approach to study auditory cognition. The Journal of Neuroscience, 34, 11152– 11158. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1568-14.2014 25122911 PMC6705255 · DOI
  69. Winn M. B. (2016). Rapid release from listening effort resulting from semantic context, and effects of spectral degradation and cochlear implants. Trends in Hearing, 20, 2331216516669723 10.1177/2331216516669723 27698260 PMC5051669 · DOI
  70. Winn M. B. Edwards J. R. Litovsky R. Y. (2015). The impact of auditory spectral resolution on listening effort revealed by pupil dilation. Ear & Hearing, 36, e153– e165. 10.1097/AUD.0000000000000145 25654299 PMC4478109 · DOI
  71. Winn M. B. Wendt D. Koelewijn T. Kuchinsky S. E. (2018). Best practices and advice for using pupillometry to measure listening effort: An introduction for those who want to get started. Trends in Hearing, 22, 2331216518800869 10.1177/2331216518800869 30261825 PMC6166306 · DOI
  72. Xue L. Huang D. Wang T. Hu Q. Chai X. Li L. Chen Y. (2017). Dynamic modulation of the perceptual load on microsaccades during a selective spatial attention task. Scientific Reports, 7, 16496 10.1038/s41598-017-16629-2 29184104 PMC5705654 · DOI
  73. Zekveld A. A. Heslenfeld D. J. Johnsrude I. S. Versfeld N. J. Kramer S. E. (2014). The eye as a window to the listening brain: Neural correlates of pupil size as a measure of cognitive listening load. NeuroImage, 101, 76– 86. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2014.06.069 24999040 · DOI
  74. Zekveld A. A. Koelewijn T. Kramer S. E. (2018). The pupil dilation response to auditory stimuli: Current state of knowledge. Trends in Hearing, 22, 1– 25. 10.1177/2331216518777174 PMC6156203 30249172 · DOI
  75. Zekveld A. A. Kramer S. E. (2014). Cognitive processing load across a wide range of listening conditions: Insights from pupillometry. Psychophysiology, 51, 277– 284. 10.1111/psyp.12151 24506437 · DOI
  76. 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, 31, 480–490. 10.1097/AUD.0b013e3181d4f251 20588118 · DOI
  77. Zekveld A. A. Kramer S. E. Rönnberg J. Rudner M. (2019). In a concurrent memory and auditory perception task, the pupil dilation response is more sensitive to memory load than to auditory stimulus characteristics. Ear & Hearing, 40, 272– 286. 10.1097/AUD.0000000000000612 29923867 PMC6400496 · DOI

Authors
Kadem, M., Herrmann, B., Rodd, J. M., & Johnsrude, I. S.
Affiliations
  • Western University (CA)
  • University College London (GB)
Corresponding author
  • Herrmann, Björn
  • Johnsrude, Ingrid S.
ORCID
Venue
Trends in Hearing
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2020-01
Volume
24
Pages
2331216520964068-2331216520964068
ISSN
2331-2165 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1177/2331216520964068
PMC
PMC7607724
OpenAlex
W3008863860
Cited by
77
References
84
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 42 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 1
FWCI
14.75
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Trends in Hearing (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • Scholarship@Western (Western University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • Canada First Research Excellence Fund
  • Canadian Institutes of Health Research
  • Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Phonetics and Phonology Research
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Hearing Loss and Rehabilitation
Keywords
pupil dilation, pupillometry, semantic ambiguity, acoustic degradation, speech understanding, cognitive effort, semantic relatedness
MeSH terms
Acoustic Stimulation, Acoustics, Humans, Pupil, Semantics, Speech Intelligibility, Speech Perception

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