Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2023 Mar 28;44(2):155-165.
doi: 10.1055/s-0043-1766140. eCollection 2023 May.

Dual-Task Paradigm Measures of Listening Effort: To Include or Not to Include Secondary Task Responses with Incorrect Primary Task Responses

Haiping Huang  1 , Ilze Oosthuizen  2   3 , Erin M Picou  1   4
Affiliations
Review

Dual-Task Paradigm Measures of Listening Effort: To Include or Not to Include Secondary Task Responses with Incorrect Primary Task Responses

Haiping Huang et al. Semin Hear. .

Abstract

Response time-based dual-task paradigms are commonly adopted to measure behavioral listening effort. Most extant studies used an all-response approach that included secondary task responses under both correct and incorrect primary task responses during analysis. However, evidence supporting this strategy is limited. Therefore, the current study investigated the potential differences between including all responses versus only including correct responses. Data from two previous studies were reanalyzed. Experiment 1 included 16 listeners and used a dual-task paradigm to examine the effect of introducing background noise on listening effort. Experiment 2 included 19 participants and used a different dual-task paradigm to examine the effect of reverberation and loudspeaker-to-listener distance on listening effort. ANOVA results obtained using both analysis approaches were compared. The all-response and correct-only approaches revealed similar results. However, larger effect sizes and an additional main effect were found with the all-response approach. The current study supports the use of an all-response approach due to its greater sensitivity to changes in behavioral listening effort. However, a correct-only approach could be utilized to suit specific study purposes.

Keywords: dual-task paradigm; listening effort.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest None declared.

References

    1. Pichora-Fuller M K, Kramer S E, Eckert M A. Hearing impairment and cognitive energy: the framework for understanding effortful listening (FUEL) Ear Hear. 2016;37 01:5S–27S. - PubMed
    1. Picou E M, Ricketts T A, Hornsby B WY. How hearing aids, background noise, and visual cues influence objective listening effort. Ear Hear. 2013;34(05):e52–e64. - PubMed
    1. Sarampalis A, Kalluri S, Edwards B, Hafter E. Objective measures of listening effort: effects of background noise and noise reduction. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2009;52(05):1230–1240. - PubMed
    1. Ohlenforst B, Wendt D, Kramer S E, Naylor G, Zekveld A A, Lunner T. Impact of SNR, masker type and noise reduction processing on sentence recognition performance and listening effort as indicated by the pupil dilation response. Hear Res. 2018;365:90–99. - PubMed
    1. Prodi N, Visentin C. Impact of background noise fluctuation and reverberation on response time in a speech reception task. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2019;62(11):4179–4195. - PubMed