Investigating pupillometry as a reliable measure of individual’s listening effort
Pupillometry as a tool indicating listening effort has been extensively analyzed on a group level, but less is known about how reliable pupil dilation is as an indicator of an individual’s listening effort. The aim of this study was to investigate the reliability of the pupil dilation measured during a speech-in-noise task as an indicator of an individual’s listening effort. The pupil dilation of 27 normal-hearing (NH) and 24 hearing-impaired (HI) participants was recorded while they performed a speech-in-noise test on two different days. Measures of intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) absolute agreement were considered in the analysis. The ICC was applied to the peak and mean pupil dilation as well as to the different terms resulting from fitting a third-order orthogonal polynomial within growth curve analysis (intercept, 1st order, 2nd order and 3rd order terms), which are assumed to provide further information about temporal changes of the pupil dilation. High values of test-retest reliability were found on some measures of the pupil response. Furthermore, a Bland-Altman analysis was applied as a graphical representation of the reliability of the pupillometry. The results showed different levels of reliability depending on the different features of the pupil response (slope, rise-fall and mean pupil dilation for the HI listeners; rise-fall, delay and mean pupil dilation for NH).
Alhanbali, S., Dawes, P., Millman, R., and Munro, K. (2019). “Measures of listening effort are multidimensional,” Ear. Hear., 40(5), 1084–1097, doi: 10.1097/AUD.0000000000000697.
Bland, J.M. and Altman, D.G. (1986). “Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement,” Lancet., 327(8476), 307-310, doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(86)90837-8.
Cicchetti, D.V (1994). “Guidelines, criteria, and rules of thumb for evaluating normed and standardized assessment instruments in psychology.,” Psychol. Assess., 6(4), 284-290, doi: 10.1037/1040-35188.8.131.524.
Hays, R.D., Anderson, R., and Revicki, D. (1993). “Psychometric considerations in evaluating health-related quality of life measures,” Qual. Life Res., 2(6), 441–449, doi: 10.1007/BF00422218.
Kalenine, S., Mirman, D., Middleton, E.L., and Buxbaum, L.J. (2012). “Temporal dynamics of activation of thematic and functional knowledge during conceptual processing of manipulable artifacts.,” J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn., 38(5), pp. 1274-1295, doi: 10.1037/a0027626.
Kramer, S.E., Kapteyn, T.S., and Houtgast, T. (2006). “Occupational performance: Comparing normally-hearing and hearing-impaired employees using the Amsterdam Checklist for Hearing and Work.,” Int. J. Audiol., 45(9), 503–512, doi: 10.1080/14992020600754583.
Mirman, D., Dixon, J.A., and Magnuson, J.S. (2008). “ Statistical and computational models of the visual world paradigm: growth curves and individual differences,” J. Mem. Lang., 59(4), 475-494, doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2007.11.006.
Nielsen, J.B. and Dau, T. (2011). “The Danish hearing in noise test,” Int. J. Audiol., 50(3), 202-208, doi: 10.3109/14992027.2010.524254.
Ohlenforst, B., Wendt, D., Kramer, S.E., Naylor, G., Zekveld, A.A., and Lunner, T. (2018). “Impact of SNR, masker type and noise reduction processing on sentence recognition performance and listening effort as indicated by the pupil dilation response,” Hear. Res., 365, 90-99, doi: 10.1016/j.heares.2018.05.003.
Wendt, D., Dau T., and Hjortkjær, J. (2015). “Impact of background noise and sentence complexity on processing demands during sentence comprehension.”, Front. Psychol., 7(31), 345, doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00345.
Wendt, D., Koelewijn, T., Ksia ̨z ̇ek, P., Kramer, S.E., and Lunner, T. (2018). “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,” Hear. Res., 369, 67-78, doi: 10.1016/j.heares.2018.05.006.
Zekveld, A., Kramer, S., and Festen, J. (2010). “ Pupil response as an indication of effortful listening: the influence of sentence intelligibility.,” Ear. Hear., 31(4), 480-490, doi: 10.1097/AUD.0b013e3181d4f251.
Zekveld, A.A., Koelewijn, T., and Kramer, S.E. (2018). “ The Pupil Dilation Response to Auditory Stimuli: Current State of Knowledge,” Trends. Hear., 22(4412), doi: 10.1177/2331216518777174.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
a. Authors retain copyright* and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
b. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
c. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
*From the 2017 issue onward. The Danavox Jubilee Foundation owns the copyright of all articles published in the 1969-2015 issues. However, authors are still allowed to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.