Listening Effort Measured in Adults with Normal Hearing and Cochlear Implants

 

 Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background:

Studies have examined listening effort in individuals with hearing loss to determine the extent of the impairment. Regarding cochlear implants (CIs), results suggest that listening effort is improved using bilateral CIs compared to unilateral CIs. Few studies have investigated listening effort and outcomes related to the hybrid CI.

Purpose:

Here, we compared listening effort across three CI groups, and to a normal-hearing control group. The impact of listener traits, that is, age, age at onset of hearing loss, duration of CI use, and working memory capacity, were examined relative to listening effort.

Research Design:

The participants completed a dual-task paradigm with a primary task identifying sentences in noise and a secondary task measuring reaction time on a Stroop test. Performance was assessed for all participant groups at different signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs), ranging in 2-dB steps from 0 to +10 dB relative to an individual’s SNR-50, at which the speech recognition performance is 50% correct. Participants completed three questions on listening effort, the Spatial Hearing Questionnaire, and a reading span test.

Study Sample:

All 46 participants were adults. The four participant groups included (1) 12 individuals with normal hearing, (2) 10 with unilateral CIs, (3) 12 with bilateral CIs, and (4) 12 with a hybrid short-electrode CI and bilateral residual hearing.

Data Collection and Analysis:

Results from the dual-task experiment were compared using a mixed 4 (hearing group) by 6 (SNR condition) analysis of variance (ANOVA). Questionnaire results were compared using one-way ANOVAs, and correlations between listener traits and the objective and subjective measures were compared using Pearson correlation coefficients.

Results:

Significant differences were found in speech perception among the normal-hearing and the unilateral and the bilateral CI groups. There was no difference in primary task performance among the hybrid CI and the normal-hearing groups. Across the six SNR conditions, listening effort improved to a greater degree for the normal-hearing group compared to the CI groups. However, there was no significant difference in listening effort between the CI groups. The subjective measures revealed significant differences between the normal-hearing and CI groups, but no difference among the three CI groups. Across all groups, age was significantly correlated with listening effort. We found no relationship between listening effort and the age at the onset of hearing loss, age at implantation, the duration of CI use, and working memory capacity for these participants.

Conclusions:

Listening effort was reduced to a greater degree for the normal-hearing group compared to the CI users. There was no significant difference in listening effort among the CI groups. For the CI users in this study, age was a significant factor with regard to listening effort, whereas other variables such as the duration of CI use and the age at the onset of hearing loss were not significantly related to listening effort.

This research study was funded by a pretenure sabbatical leave grant, a New Faculty Research grant, and Larry Jones Endowed Fellowship grant from Augustana College awarded to Ann Perreau; a Student-Faculty Partnership grant awarded to Bailey Tatge; and research grant 2 P50 DC000242-26A1 from the National Institutes on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders, National Institutes of Health to the University of Iowa, where the participants were recruited.

• REFERENCES

• Bernarding C, Strauss DJ, Hannemann R, Seidler H, Corona-Strauss FI. 2013; Neural correlates of listening effort related factors: influence of age and hearing impairment. Brain Res Bull 91: 21-30
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Christal RM. 2013 Subjective and objective measures of adult bimodal users’ listening. Doctoral Dissertation, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO
  PubMed
• Degeest S, Keppler H, Corthals P. 2015; The effect of age on listening effort. J Speech Lang Hear Res 58 (05) 1592-1600
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Desjardins JL, Doherty KA. 2013; Age-related changes in listening effort for various types of masker noises. Ear Hear 34 (03) 261-272
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Downs DW. 1982; Effects of hearing and use on speech discrimination and listening effort. J Speech Hear Disord 47 (02) 189-193
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Dunn CC, Noble W, Tyler RS, Kordus M, Gantz BJ, Ji H. 2010; Bilateral and unilateral cochlear implant users compared on speech perception in noise. Ear Hear 31 (02) 296-298
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang AG, Buchner A. 2007; G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Res Methods 39: 175-191
  Google Scholar
• Feuerstein JF. 1992; Monaural versus binaural hearing: ease of listening, word recognition, and attentional effort. Ear Hear 13 (02) 80-86
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gantz BJ, Turner C, Gfeller K. 2004; Expanding cochlear implant technology: combined electrical and acoustical speech processing. Cochlear Implants Int 5 (01) (Suppl) 8-14
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gatehouse S, Noble W. 2004; The Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing Scale (SSQ). Int J Audiol 43 (02) 85-99
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gfeller KE, Olszewski C, Turner C, Gantz B, Oleson J. 2006; Music perception with cochlear implants and residual hearing. Audiol Neurootol 11 (01) (Suppl) 12-15
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gfeller K, Turner C, Oleson J, Zhang X, Gantz B, Froman R, Olszewski C.. 2007; Accuracy of cochlear implant recipients on pitch perception, melody recognition, and speech reception in noise. Ear Hear 28 (03) 412-423
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gosselin PA, Gagné JP. 2011; Older adults expend more listening effort than young adults recognizing audiovisual speech in noise. Int J Audiol 50 (11) 786-792
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hicks CB, Tharpe AM. 2002; Listening effort and fatigue in school-age children with and without hearing loss. J Speech Lang Hear Res 45 (03) 573-584
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hornsby BWY. 2013; The effects of hearing aid use on listening effort and mental fatigue associated with sustained speech processing demands. Ear Hear 34 (05) 523-534
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hughes KC, Galvin KL. 2013; Measuring listening effort expended by adolescents and young adults with unilateral or bilateral cochlear implants or normal hearing. Cochlear Implants Int 14 (03) 121-129
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• IBM Corp. 2013 IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 22.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp
  PubMed
• Johnson J, Xu J, Cox R, Pendergraft P. 2015; A comparison of two methods for measuring listening effort as part of an audiologic test battery. Am J Audiol 24 (03) 419-431
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kahneman D. 1973. Attention and Effort. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall Inc.;
  Google Scholar
• Lenarz T, James C, Cuda D, Fitzgerald O’Connor A, Frachet B, Frijns JH, Klenzner T, Laszig R, Manrique M, Marx M, Merkus P, Mylanus EA, Offeciers E, Pesch J, Ramos-Macias A, Robier A, Sterkers O, Uziel A. 2013; European multi-centre study of the Nucleus Hybrid L24 cochlear implant. Int J Audiol 52 (12) 838-848
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lunner T. 2003; Cognitive function in relation to hearing aid use. Int J Audiol 42 (01) (Suppl) S49-S58
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Mackersie CL, Cones H. 2011; Subjective and psychophysiological indexes of listening effort in a competing-talker task. J Am Acad Audiol 22 (02) 113-122
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• McGarrigle R, Munro KJ, Dawes P, Stewart AJ, Moore DR, Barry JG, Amitay S. 2014; 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 (07) 433-440
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Noble W, Tyler R, Dunn C, Bhullar N. 2008; Unilateral and bilateral cochlear implants and the implant-plus-hearing-aid profile: comparing self-assessed and measured abilities. Int J Audiol 47 (08) 505-514
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Pals C, Sarampalis A, Baskent D. 2013; Listening effort with cochlear implant simulations. J Speech Lang Hear Res 56 (04) 1075-1084
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Pashler H. 1994; Dual-task interference in simple tasks: data and theory. Psychol Bull 116 (02) 220-244
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Perreau AE, Ou H, Tyler R, Dunn C. 2014; Self-reported spatial hearing abilities across different cochlear implant profiles. Am J Audiol 23 (04) 374-384
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Perreau A, Spejcher B, Ou H, Tyler R. 2014; The Spatial Hearing Questionnaire: data from individuals with normal hearing. Am J Audiol 23 (02) 173-181
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Peterson GE, Lehiste I. 1962; Revised CNC lists for auditory tests. J Speech Hear Disord 27: 62-70
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Pichora-Fuller MK, Kramer SE, Eckert MA, Edwards B, Hornsby BW, Humes LE, Lemke U, Lunner T, Matthen M, Mackersie CL, Naylor G, Phillips NA, Richter M, Rudner M, Sommers MS, Tremblay KL, Wingfield A. 2016; Hearing impairment and cognitive energy: the framework for understanding effortful listening (FUEL). Ear Hear 37 (01) (Suppl) 5S-27S
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Picou EM, Ricketts TA, Hornsby BWY. 2013; How hearing aids, background noise, and visual cues influence objective listening effort. Ear Hear 34 (05) e52-e64
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Stroop JR. 1992; Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. J Exp Psychol Gen 121 (01) 15-23
  CrossrefGoogle Scholar
• Turner CW, Gantz BJ, Vidal C, Behrens A, Henry BA. 2004; Speech recognition in noise for cochlear implant listeners: benefits of residual acoustic hearing. J Acoust Soc Am 115 (04) 1729-1735
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Tyler RS, Perreau AE, Ji H. 2009; The validation of the spatial hearing questionnaire. Ear Hear 30 (04) 466-474
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Winn MB, Edwards JR, Litovsky RY. 2015; The impact of auditory spectral resolution on listening effort revealed by pupil dilation. Ear Hear 36 (04) e153-e165
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wu Y, Stangl EA, Zhang X, Perkins J, Eilers E. 2016; Psychometric functions of dual-task paradigms for measuring listening effort. Ear Hear. 37 (06) 660-670
  PubMedGoogle Scholar