Using response time to speech as a measure for listening effort

References

• Apoux F., Crouzet O. & Lorenzi C. 2001. Temporal envelope expansion of speech in noise for normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners: Effects on identification performance and response times. Hear Res, 153, 123–131.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baayen R.H. & Milin P. 2010. Analyzing reaction times. Intl J Psychol Res, 3, 12–28.
   Google Scholar
• Baer T., Moore B.C. & Gatehouse S. 1993. Spectral contrast enhancement of speech in noise for listeners with sensorineural hearing impairment: Effects on intelligibility, quality, and response times. J Rehabil Res Dev, 30, 49–72.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beatty J. & Kahneman D. 1966. Pupillary changes in two memory tasks. Psychonomic Science, 5, 371–372.
   Google Scholar
• Brainard D.H. 1997. The psychophysics toolbox. Spat Vis, 10, 433–436.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Brons I., Houben R. & Dreschler W.A. 2012. Perceptual effects of noise reduction with respect to personal preference, speech intelligibility, and listening effort. Ear Hear, early online, 1–13.
   Google Scholar
• Chang R.S. & Thompson N.S. 2011. Whines, cries, and motherese: Their relative power to distract. J Soc Evol Cult Psychol, 5, 131–141.
   Google Scholar
• Downs D.W. 1982. Effects of hearing aid use on speech discrimination and listening effort. J Speech Hear Disord, 47, 189–193.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Downs D.W. & Crum M.A. 1978. Processing demands during auditory learning under degraded listening conditions. J Speech Hear Res, 702–714.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Durin V., Gros L. & Hericher G. 2008. Reaction times and performances in recognition tasks to assess speech quality. In: Proceedings of the 124th Audio Engineering Society Convention. Amsterdam, The Netherlands, pp. 1–8.
   Google Scholar
• Feuerstein J.F. 1992. Monaural versus binaural hearing: Ease of listening, word recognition, and attentional effort. Ear Hear, 13, 80–86.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fraser S., Gagne J.P., Alepins M. & Dubois P. 2010. Evaluating the effort expended to understand speech in noise using a dual-task paradigm: The effects of providing visual speech cues. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 53, 18–33.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gatehouse S. & Gordon J. 1990. Response times to speech stimuli as measures of benefit from amplification. Br J Audiol, 24, 63–68.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gatehouse S. & Noble W. 2004. The speech, spatial and qualities of hearing scale (SSQ). Int J Audiol, 43, 85–99.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gosselin P.A. & Gagné J.P. 2011. Older adults expend more listening effort than young adults recognizing audiovisual speech in noise. Int J Audiol, 786–792.
   Google Scholar
• Hicks C.B. & Tharpe A.M. 2002. Listening effort and fatigue in school-age children with and without hearing loss. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 45, 573.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoeks B. & Levelt W.J.M. 1993. Pupillary dilation as a measure of attention: A quantitative system analysis. Behav Res Meth Instrum Comput, 25, 16–26.
   Google Scholar
• Howard C.S., Munro K.J. & Plack C.J. 2010. Listening effort at signal- to-noise ratios that are typical of the school classroom. Int J Audiol, 49, 928–932.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huckvale M. & Leak J. 2009. Effect of noise reduction on reaction time to speech in noise. In: Proceedings of the 10th Annual Conference of the International Speech Communication Association. Brighton, UK, pp. 1–4.
   Google Scholar
• Kahneman D. 1973. Attention and Effort, Prentice Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Kahneman D., Tursky B., Shapiro D. & Crider A. 1969. Pupillary, heart rate, and skin resistance changes during a mental task. J Exp Psychol, 79, 164–167.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kramer S.E., Kapteyn T.S., Festen J.M. & Kuik D.J. 1997. Assessing aspects of auditory handicap by means of pupil dilatation. Int J Audiol, 155–164.
   Google Scholar
• 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. Int J Audiol, 44, 131–143.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee K-M. & Kang S-Y. 2002. Arithmetic operation and working memory: Differential suppression in dual tasks. Cognition, 83, B63–B68.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luts H., Eneman K., Wouters J., Schulte M., Vormann M. et al. 2010. Multicenter evaluation of signal enhancement algorithms for hearing aids. J Acoust Soc Am, 127, 1491–1505.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mackersie C.L., Boothroyd A. & Prida T. 2000. Use of a simultaneous sentence perception test to enhance sensitivity to ease of listening. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 43, 675–682.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mackersie C.L. & Cones H. 2011. Subjective and psychophysiological indices of listening effort in a competing-talker task. J Am Acad Audiol, 22, 113–122.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marzinzik M. 2000. Noise reduction schemes for digital hearing aids and their use for the hearing impaired. Ph.D. thesis, Medical Physics, University of Oldenburg, Oldenburg, Germany.
   Google Scholar
• Rabbitt P. 1966. Recognition: Memory for words correctly heard in noise. Psychon Sci, 6, 383–384.
   Google Scholar
• Ratcliff R. 1993. Methods for dealing with reaction time outliers. Psychol Bull, 114, 510–532.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sarampalis A., Kalluri S., Edwards B. & Hafter E. 2009. Objective measures of listening effort: Effects of background noise and noise reduction. J Sp Lang Hear Res, 52, 1230–1240.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smits C., Kapteyn T. & Houtgast T. 2004. Development and validation of an automatic speech-in-noise screening test by telephone. Int J Audiol, 43, 15–28.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stelmachowicz P.G., Lewis D.E., Choi S. & Hoover B. 2007. The effect of stimulus bandwidth on auditory skills in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired children. Ear Hear, 28, 483–494.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Studebaker G.A. 1985. A ‘rationalized’ arcsine transform. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 28, 455–462.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vlaming M.S.M., Kollmeier B., Dreschler W.A., Martin R., Wouters J. et al. 2011. HearCom: Hearing in the communication society. Acta Acust United Ac, 97, 175–192.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wagenaar W.A. 1969. Note on the construction of digram-balanced Latin squares. Psychol Bull, 72, 384–386.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Whelan R. 2010. Effective analysis of reaction time data. Psychol Rec, 58, 475–482.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar