Investigating pupillometry as a reliable measure of individual’s listening effort

  • Mihaela-Beatrice Neagu Hearing Systems, Department of Health Technology, Technical University of Denmark, Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark
  • Torsten Dau Hearing Systems, Department of Health Technology, Technical University of Denmark, Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark
  • Petteri Hyvärinen Hearing Systems, Department of Health Technology, Technical University of Denmark, Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark
  • Per Bækgaard Cognitive Systems, Department of Applied Mathematics and Computer Science, Technical University of Denmark, Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark
  • Thomas Lunner Eriksholm Research Center Denmark, Snekkersten, Denmark; Department of Electrical Engineering, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden
  • Dorothea Wendt Hearing Systems, Department of Health Technology, Technical University of Denmark, Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark; Eriksholm Research Center Denmark, Snekkersten, Denmark

Abstract

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).

References

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: 10.1037/1040-3590.6.4.284.

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.

Published
2020-04-29
How to Cite
Neagu, M.-B., Dau, T., Hyvärinen, P., Bækgaard, P., Lunner, T., & Wendt, D. (2020). Investigating pupillometry as a reliable measure of individual’s listening effort. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Auditory and Audiological Research, 7, 365-372. Retrieved from https://proceedings.isaar.eu/index.php/isaarproc/article/view/2019-42
Section
2019/5. Other topics in auditory and audiological research