Skip to main content
banner image
No data available.
Please log in to see this content.
You have no subscription access to this content.
No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
The full text of this article is not currently available.
1. S. Stenfelt and J. Rönnberg, “ The Signal-Cognition interface: Interactions between degraded auditory signals and cognitive processes,” Scand. J. Psychol. 50(5), 385393 (2009).
2. R. McGarrigle, K. J. Munro, P. Dawes, A. J. Stewart, D. R. Moore, J. G. Barry, and S. Amitay, “ Listening effort and fatigue: What exactly are we measuring? A British Society of Audiology Cognition in Hearing Special Interest Group ‘white paper,’ ” Int. J. Audiol. 53, 433440 (2014).
3. M. Rudner, T. Lunner, T. Behrens, E. S. Thorén, and J. Rönnberg, “ Working memory capacity may influence perceived effort during aided speech recognition in noise,” J. Am. Acad. Audiol. 23(8), 577589 (2012).
4. P. M. Rabbitt, “ Recognition: Memory for words correctly heard in noise,” Psychonomic Sci. 6(8), 383384 (1966).
5. M. H. Hecker, K. N. Stevens, and C. E. Williams, “ Measurements of reaction time in intelligibility tests,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 39(6), 11881189 (1966).
6. T. Baer, B. C. J. Moore, and S. Gatehouse,“ 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(1), 4972 (1993).
7. S. Gatehouse and J. Gordon, “ Response times to speech stimuli as measures of benefit from amplification,” Brit. J. Audiol. 24(1), 6368 (1990).
8. C. Pals, A. Sarampalis, and D. Başkent, “ Listening effort with cochlear implant simulations,” J. Speech Lang. Hear. Res. 56, 10751084 (2013).
9. A. Sarampalis, S. Kalluri, B. Edwards, and E. Hafter, “ Objective measures of listening effort: Effects of background noise and noise reduction,” J. Speech Lang. Hear. Res. 52(5), 12301240 (2009).
10. T. Koelewijn, A. A. Zekveld, J. M. Festen, and S. E. Kramer, “ Pupil dilation uncovers extra listening effort in the presence of a single-talker masker,” Ear Hear. 33(2), 291300 (2012).
11. A. D. Baddeley and G. Hitch, “ Working memory,” Psychol. Learn. Motiv. 8, 4789 (1974).
12. D. Kahneman, “ Attention and effort,” in Measurement ( Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1973).
13. M. Nijboer, N. A. Taatgen, A. Brands, J. P. Borst, and H. van Rijn, “ Decision making in concurrent multitasking: Do people adapt to task interference?,” PloS One 8(11), e79583 (2013).
14. N. J. Versfeld, L. Daalder, J. M. Festen, and T. Houtgast, “ Method for the selection of sentence materials for efficient measurement of the speech reception threshold,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 107(3), 16711684 (2000).
15. H. Levitt, “ Transformed up-down methods in psychoacoustics,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 49(2), 467477 (1971).
16. D. Wechsler, Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale [Dutch version], 4th ed. ( WAIS-IV-NL, 2012), (Pearson, Amsterdam, the Netherlands).
17. M. Van den Noort, P. Bosch, M. Haverkort, and K. Hugdahl, “ A Standard Computerized Version of the Reading Span Test in Different Languages,” Eur. J. Psychol. Assess. 24(1), 3542 (2008).
18. D. J. Barr, R. Levy, C. Scheepers, and H. J. Tily, “ Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal,” J. Mem. Lang. 68(3), 255278 (2013).
19. G. R. Hockey, “ Compensatory control in the regulation of human performance under stress and high workload; a cognitive-energetical framework,” Biol. Psychol. 45(1–3), 7393 (1997).
20. C. Karatekin, J. W. Couperus, and D. J. Marcus, “ Attention allocation in the dual-task paradigm as measured through behavioral and psychophysiological responses,” Psychophysiology 41(2), 175185 (2004).
21. P. A. Jansen and S. Watter, “ SayWhen: An automated method for high-accuracy speech onset detection,” Behav. Res. Methods 40(3), 744751 (2008).

Data & Media loading...


Article metrics loading...



This study compares two response-time measures of listening effort that can be combined with a clinical speech test for a more comprehensive evaluation of total listening experience; verbal response times to auditory stimuli (RT) and response times to a visual task (RTs) in a dual-task paradigm. The listening task was presented in five masker conditions; no noise, and two types of noise at two fixed intelligibility levels. Both the RTs and RTs showed effects of noise. However, only RTs showed an effect of intelligibility. Because of its simplicity in implementation, RTs may be a useful effort measure for clinical applications.


Full text loading...


Access Key

  • FFree Content
  • OAOpen Access Content
  • SSubscribed Content
  • TFree Trial Content
752b84549af89a08dbdd7fdb8b9568b5 journal.articlezxybnytfddd