Skip to main page content

• HOME
• Current Issue
• Archive
• Contact us
• Help
• Custom Print FAQ

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Custom Print Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal My Folders Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Sarampalis, A. Articles by Hafter, E. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Sarampalis, A. Articles by Hafter, E. Related Collections Editors' Awards Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Objective Measures of Listening Effort: Effects of Background Noise and Noise Reduction

Sridhar Kalluri
Brent Edwards
Starkey Hearing Research Center, Berkeley, CA

Ervin Hafter
University of California at Berkeley

Contact author: Anastasios Sarampalis, who is now with the Department of Psychology, University of Groningen, Grote Kruisstraat 2/1, 9712 TS, Groningen, the Netherlands. E-mail: a.sarampalis{at}rug.nl.

Purpose: This work is aimed at addressing a seeming contradiction related to the use of noise-reduction (NR) algorithms in hearing aids. The problem is that although some listeners claim a subjective improvement from NR, it has not been shown to improve speech intelligibility, often even making it worse.

Method: To address this, the hypothesis tested here is that the positive effects of NR might be to reduce cognitive effort directed toward speech reception, making it available for other tasks. Normal-hearing individuals participated in 2 dual-task experiments, in which 1 task was to report sentences or words in noise set to various signal-to-noise ratios. Secondary tasks involved either holding words in short-term memory or responding in a complex visual reaction-time task.

Results: At low values of signal-to-noise ratio, although NR had no positive effect on speech reception thresholds, it led to better performance on the word-memory task and quicker responses in visual reaction times.

Conclusions: Results from both dual tasks support the hypothesis that NR reduces listening effort and frees up cognitive resources for other tasks. Future hearing aid research should incorporate objective measurements of cognitive benefits.

CiteULike    Connotea    Delicious    Digg    Facebook    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				S. Kalluri and L. E. Humes Hearing Technology and Cognition Am J Audiol, December 1, 2012; 21(2): 338 - 343. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				P. A. Tun, V. A. Williams, B. J. Small, and E. R. Hafter The Effects of Aging on Auditory Processing and Cognition Am J Audiol, December 1, 2012; 21(2): 344 - 350. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. W. McCreery, R. A. Venediktov, J. J. Coleman, and H. M. Leech An Evidence-Based Systematic Review of Directional Microphones and Digital Noise Reduction Hearing Aids in School-Age Children With Hearing Loss Am J Audiol, December 1, 2012; 21(2): 295 - 312. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. Pittman Children's Performance in Complex Listening Conditions: Effects of Hearing Loss and Digital Noise Reduction J Speech Lang Hear Res, August 1, 2011; 54(4): 1224 - 1239. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				P. Anderson Gosselin and J.-P. Gagne Older Adults Expend More Listening Effort Than Young Adults Recognizing Speech in Noise J Speech Lang Hear Res, June 1, 2011; 54(3): 944 - 958. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. Ronnberg, H. Danielsson, M. Rudner, S. Arlinger, O. Sternang, A. Wahlin, and L.-G. Nilsson Hearing Loss Is Negatively Related to Episodic and Semantic Long-Term Memory but Not to Short-Term Memory J Speech Lang Hear Res, April 1, 2011; 54(2): 705 - 726. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]