Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 172

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Subjective and Psychophysiological Indexes of Listening Effort in a Competing-Talker Task

Open access
Mackersie, Carol L., Cones, Heather·2011·Journal of the American Academy of Audiology

Abstract

Background:The effects of noise and other competing backgrounds on speech recognition performance are well documented. There is less information, however, on listening effort and stress experienced by listeners during a speech-recognition task that requires inhibition of competing sounds.Purpose:The purpose was (a) to determine if psychophysiological indexes of listening effort were more sensitive than performance measures (percentage correct) obtained near ceiling level during a competing speech task, (b) to determine the relative sensitivity of four psychophysiological measures to changes in task demand, and (c) to determine the relationships between changes in psychophysiological measures and changes in subjective ratings of stress and workload.Research Design:A repeated-measures experimental design was used to examine changes in performance, psychophysiological measures, and subjective ratings in response to increasing task demand.Study Sample:Fifteen adults with normal hearing participated in the study. The mean age of the participants was 27 (range: 24‐54).Data Collection and Analysis:Psychophysiological recordings of heart rate, skin conductance, skin temperature, and electromyographic (EMG) activity were obtained during listening tasks of varying demand. Materials from the Dichotic Digits Test were used to modulate task demand. The three levels of task demand were single digits presented to one ear (low-demand reference condition), single digits presented simultaneously to both ears (medium demand), and a series of two digits presented simultaneously to both ears (high demand). Participants were asked to repeat all the digits they heard, while psychophysiological activity was recorded simultaneously. Subjective ratings of task load were obtained after each condition using the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Task Load Index questionnaire. Repeated-measures analyses of variance were completed for each measure using task demand and session as factors.Results:Mean performance was higher than 96% for all listening tasks. There was no significant change in performance across listening conditions for any listener. There was, however, a significant increase in mean skin conductance and EMG activity as task demand increased. Heart rate and skin temperature did not change significantly. There was no strong association between subjective and psychophysiological measures, but all participants with mean normalized effort ratings of greater than 4.5 (i.e., effort increased by a factor of at least 4.5) showed significant changes in skin conductance.Conclusions:Even in the absence of substantial performance changes, listeners may experience changes in subjective and psychophysiological responses consistent with the activation of a stress response. Skin conductance appears to be the most promising measure for evaluating individual changes in psychophysiological responses during listening tasks.

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 · 10.3766/jaaa.22.2.6

Cites

4 of 4 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 4 references

Cited by

See all 172

Metadata

Authors
Mackersie, C. L., & Cones, H.
Venue
Journal of the American Academy of Audiology
Published
2011-02-01
Volume
22
Issue
2
Pages
113-122
ISSN
1050-0545 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1975804333
Cited by
172
References
4
FWCI
2.86
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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: Subjective and Psychophysiological Indexes of Listening Effort in a Competing-Talker Task. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3766/jaaa.22.2.6
The paper
Mackersie, C. L., & Cones, H. (2011). Subjective and Psychophysiological Indexes of Listening Effort in a Competing-Talker Task. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology. https://doi.org/10.3766/jaaa.22.2.6

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.