Search Abstracts | Symposia | Slide Sessions | Poster Sessions
Listening Effort and Inhibitory Control in Real-World Noise Environments
Poster Session A, Wednesday, September 30, 11:00 am - 1:00 pm, Wangari Maathai
Beatriz de Diego-Lazaro1, Arianna LaCroix3, Alexis Perez-Bellido2, Ruth de Diego-Balaguer4, Carlos Benitez-Barrera5; 1University of Valladolid; University of Barcelona, 2Autonomus University of Barcelona, 3Purdue University, 4University of Barcelona, 5University of South Florida
Purpose: Listening in noise is a cognitively demanding task necessary for successful learning and communication in real-world environments, that often leads to increased listening effort. Although traditional listening models suggest the allocation of executive function skills, such as inhibitory control, to perceive speech in noise, the relationship between listening effort and executive function, and their relative contribution to speech perception in noise remains unclear. The purpose of this study is to (1) assess whether inhibitory control and listening effort predict performance in a speech perception task (quiet vs. noise) and (2) examine whether inhibitory control and listening effort are related to each other. Method: Forty-one normal hearing adults (18-30 years old) completed a speech perception task in quiet and in noise. We measured listening effort using pupillometry and a self-report measure. In addition, participants completed verbal working memory, visual and auditory inhibitory control behavioral tasks. We ran Generalized Linear Mixed Models (GLMM) to predict speech perception performance from inhibitory control and listening effort measures by condition (quiet vs. noise), controlling for working memory. We ran Spearman correlations between inhibitory control, pupil dilation measures, and self-reported listening effort in noise. Results: We found a main effect of peak pupil dilation latency (β = -0.023, p = .005) and a significant interaction between self-reported effort and condition (β = -0.187, p < .001), indicating that later peak pupil dilations and higher self-reported effort predicted worse speech perception, especially in noise. Regarding executive functions, we found a significant interaction between working memory and condition (β = 0.038, p < .005), indicating that better working memory was predictive of better speech perception in noise. No significant main effects or interactions were found for inhibitory control. In addition, inhibitory control and listening effort were not correlated with each other. Conclusions: Listening effort measures were correlated with each other and were stronger predictors of speech perception than inhibitory control. Higher working memory predicted better speech perception in noise, but inhibitory control, neither auditory nor visual, predicted speech perception. These findings can be discussed in the context of the Ease of Language Understanding model, which suggests that the allocation of more cognitive resources and increased listening effort might not improve speech perception in noise.
Topic Areas: Speech Perception, Control, Selection, and Executive Processes