Listening effort describes the allocation of attentional and cognitive resources for successful listening. In adverse conditions, the mental demands for listening increase, interfering with other cognitive functions. This is especially relevant in learning spaces, where complex tasks that recruit more cognitive resources (e.g. memorization of information and comprehension) are performed by the students. This study focuses on the case of university classrooms and investigates the effects of different types of masking noise on both speech intelligibility and listening effort. Speech-in-noise tests in the Italian language were presented to 25 young adults with normal hearing (13 native and 12 non-native listeners) within an existing university classroom located in Bozen-Bolzano (Italy). The tests were presented in three listening conditions (quiet, stationary noise, and fluctuating noise), grouping the listeners around two locations within the classroom. The task performance was assessed using both speech intelligibility and two proxy measures of listening effort: response time and subjective ratings of effort. Longer response times and higher subjective ratings were taken to reflect increased listening effort. Results in noisy conditions were compared to the quiet condition. A disadvantage in task accuracy performance was found for non-native compared to native listeners; concerning response time, it was found that when the target signal is masked by a fluctuating noise, additional processing time is requested to non-native listeners compared to their native peers. The interaction was not pointed out by subjective ratings, supporting the hypothesis of a different sensitivity to listening conditions of the two proxy measures of listening effort.
MattysSLDavisMHBradlowAR, et al. Speech recognition in adverse conditions: a review. Lang Cognitive Proc2012; 27: 953–978.
2.
RönnbergJLunnerTZekveldA, et al. The Ease of Language Understanding (ELU) model: theoretical, empirical, and clinical advances. Front Syst Neurosci2013; 7: 31.
3.
McGarrigleRMunroKJDawesP, et al. Listening effort and fatigue: what exactly are we measuring? A British society of audiology cognition in hearing special interest group “white paper.”Int J Audiol2014; 53: 433–440.
4.
Pichora-FullerMKKramerSEEckertMA, et al. Hearing impairment and cognitive energy: the framework for understanding effortful listening (FUEL). Ear Hearing2016; 37: 5S–27S.
5.
KahnemannD. Attention and Effort. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1973.
6.
HornsbyBWNaylorGBessFH. A taxonomy of fatigue concepts and their relation to hearing loss. Ear Hearing2016; 37: 136S–144S.
7.
KeyAPGustafsonSJRentmeesterL, et al. Speech-processing fatigue in children: auditory event-related potential and behavioral measures. J Speech Lang Hear R2017; 60: 2090–2104.
8.
StrandJFBrownVAMerchantMB, et al. Measuring listening effort: convergent validity, sensitivity, and links with cognitive and personality measures. J Speech Lang Hear R2018; 61: 1463–1486.
9.
AlhanbaliSDawesPMillmanRE, et al. Measures of listening effort are multidimensional. Ear Hearing2019; 40: 1084–1097.
10.
RudnerMLunnerTBehrensT, et al. Working memory capacity may influence perceived effort during aided speech recognition in noise. J Am Acad Audiol2012; 23: 577–589.
11.
WuYHStanglEZhangX, et al. Psychometric functions of dual-task paradigms for measuring listening effort. Ear Hearing2016; 37: 660–670.
12.
WendtDKoelewijnTKsiążekP, et al. Toward a more comprehensive understanding of the impact of masker type and signal-to-noise ratio on the pupillary response while performing a speech-in-noise test. Hearing Res2018; 369: 67–78.
13.
LecumberriMLGCookeMCutlerA. Non-native speech perception in adverse conditions: a review. Speech Commun2010; 52: 864–886.
14.
IEC 60268-16:2011. Sound system equipment—part 16: objective rating of speech intelligibility by Speech Transmission Index.
15.
KilmanLZekveldAHällgrenM, et al. The influence of non-native language proficiency on speech perception performance. Front Psychol2014; 5: 651.
16.
van WijngaardenSJSteenekenHJMHoutgastT. Quantifying the intelligibility of speech in noise for non-native listeners. J Acoust Soc Am2002; 111: 1906–1916.
17.
van WijngaardenSJBronkhorstAWHoutgastT, et al. Using the Speech Transmission Index for predicting non-native speech intelligibility. J Acoust Soc Am2004; 115: 1281–1291.
18.
PengZEWangLM. Effects of noise, reverberation and foreign accent on native and non-native listeners’ performance of English speech comprehension. J Acoust Soc Am2016; 139: 2772–2783.
19.
MayoLHFlorentineMBuusS. Age of second-language acquisition and perception of speech in noise. J Speech Lang Hear R1997; 40: 686–693.
20.
LamAHodgsonMProdiN, et al. Effects of classroom acoustics on speech intelligibility and response time: a comparison between native and non-native listeners. Build Acoust2018; 25: 35–42.
21.
BorghiniGHazanV. Listening effort during sentence processing is increased for non-native listeners: a pupillometry study. Front Neurosci2018; 12: 152.
22.
PengZEWangLM. Listening effort by native and nonnative listeners due to noise, reverberation, and talker foreign accent during English speech perception. J Speech Lang Hear R2019; 62: 1068–1081.
23.
VisentinCProdiNCappellettiF, et al. Using listening effort assessment in the acoustical design of rooms for speech. Build Environ2018; 136: 38–53.
24.
ISO 11654:1997. Acoustics—sound absorbers for use in buildings—rating of sound absorption.
25.
BonaventuraPPaoloniFCanavesioF, et al. Realizzazione di un test diagnostic di intelligibilità per la lingua italiana (Development of a diagnostic intelligibility test for the Italian language). International technical report no. 3C1286, 1986. Rome: Fondazione Ugo Bordoni.
26.
ISO 9921:2003. Ergonomics—assessment of speech communication.
27.
DreschlerWAVerschuureHLudvigsenC, et al. ICRA noises: artificial noise signals with speech-like spectral and temporal properties for hearing instrument assessment. Audiology2001; 40: 148–157.
28.
ProdiNVisentinCFelettiA. On the perception of speech in primary school classrooms: ranking of noise interference and of age influence. J Acoust Soc Am2013; 133: 255–268.
29.
LoSAndrewsS. To transform or not to transform: using generalized linear mixed models to analyse reaction time data. Front Psychol2015; 6: 1171.
30.
WhelanR. Effective analysis of reaction time data. Psychol Rec2008; 58: 475–482.
31.
ParizetE. Paired comparison listening tests and circular error rates. Acta Acust United Ac2002; 88: 594–598.
32.
BaayenRHMilinP. Analyzing reaction times. Int J Psychol Res2010; 3: 12–28.
33.
BaayenRHDavidsonDJBatesDM. Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. J Mem Lang2008; 59: 390–412.
34.
GordonKR. How mixed-effects modeling can advance our understanding of learning and memory and improve clinical and educational practice. J Speech Lang Hear R2019; 62: 507–524.
35.
LewisDSchmidKO’LearyS, et al. Effects of noise on speech recognition and listening effort in children with normal hearing and children with mild bilateral or unilateral hearing loss. J Speech Lang Hear R2016; 59: 1218–1232.
36.
MeisterHRählmannSLemkeU, et al. Verbal response times as a potential indicator of cognitive load during conventional speech audiometry with matrix sentences. Trends Hear2018; 22: 1–11.
37.
McGarrigleRGustafsonSJHornsbyBW, et al. Behavioral measures of listening effort in school-age children: examining the effects of signal-to-noise ratio, hearing loss, and amplification. Ear Hearing2019; 40: 381–392.
38.
BatesDMächlerMBolkerB, et al. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J Stat Softw2015; 67: 1–48.
EverittBSHothornT. A Handbook of Statistical Analysis Using R. 2nd ed.New York: Chapman and Hall/CRC, 2010.
41.
LenthR. Least-squares means: the R Package lsmeans. J Stat Softw2016; 69: 1–33.
42.
CookeMGarcia LecumberriMLBarkerJ. The foreign language cocktail party problem: energetic and informational masking effects in non-native speech perception. J Acoust Soc Am2008; 123: 414–427.
43.
MillerGALickliderJ. The intelligibility of interrupted speech. J Acoust Soc Am1950; 50: 167–173.
44.
GeorgeELFestenJMHoutgastT. The combined effects of reverberation and nonstationary noise on sentence intelligibility. J Acoust Soc Am2008; 124: 1269–1277.
45.
WróblewskiMLewisDEValenteDL, et al. Effects of reverberation on speech recognition in stationary and modulated noise by school-aged children and young adults. Ear Hearing2012; 33: 731–744.
46.
RenniesJSchepkerHHolubeI, et al. Listening effort and speech intelligibility in listening situations affected by noise and reverberation. J Acoust Soc Am2014; 136: 2642–2653.
47.
von LochowHLyberg-ÅhlanderVSahlénB, et al. The effect of voice quality and competing speakers in a passage comprehension task: perceived effort in relation to cognitive functioning and performance in children with normal hearing. Logop Phoniatr Voco2018; 43: 32–41.
48.
PicouEMRickettsTA. The relationship between speech recognition, behavioural listening effort, and subjective ratings. Int J Audiol2018; 57: 457–467.
