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 accessAbstract
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.
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
Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of Empirical and Theoretical Research
(1988) · Advances in Psychology · doi:10.1016/s0166-4115(08)62386-9 · Cited by 15,003
Heart rate variability: origins, methods, and interpretive caveats
BERNTSON, G. G., THOMAS BIGGER, J., ECKBERG, D. L., GROSSMAN, P., KAUFMANN, P. G., MALIK, M., NAGARAJA, H. N., PORGES, S. W., SAUL, J. P., STONE, P. H., et al. (1997) · Psychophysiology · doi:10.1111/j.1469-8986.1997.tb02140.x · Cited by 3,962
Physiological workload reactions to increasing levels of task difficulty
VELTMAN, J. A., & GAILLARD, A. W. K. (1998) · Ergonomics · doi:10.1080/001401398186829 · Cited by 433
Fournier, L. R., Wilson, G. F., & Swain, C. R. (1999) · International Journal of Psychophysiology · doi:10.1016/s0167-8760(98)00049-x · Cited by 158
Cited by
Gifford, R. H., Dorman, M. F., Skarzynski, H., Lorens, A., Polak, M., Driscoll, C. L. W., Roland, P., & Buchman, C. A. (2013) · Ear & Hearing · doi:10.1097/aud.0b013e31827e8163 · Cited by 254
Richter, M. (2016) · Ear & Hearing · doi:10.1097/aud.0000000000000295 · Cited by 84
Pupil Dilation Is Sensitive to Semantic Ambiguity and Acoustic Degradation
Kadem, M., Herrmann, B., Rodd, J. M., & Johnsrude, I. S. (2020) · Trends in Hearing · doi:10.1177/2331216520964068 · Cited by 77
Cognitive spare capacity as an index of listening effort
Rudner, M. (2016) · Ear & Hearing · doi:10.1097/aud.0000000000000302 · Cited by 52
Metadata
- Authors
- Mackersie, C. L., & Cones, H.
- Venue
- Journal of the American Academy of Audiology
- Publisher
- 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.