Task repetition influence on pupil response during encoding of auditory information in normal-hearing adults

  • Miseung Koo Department of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Korea http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9769-8860
  • Myung-Whan Suh Department of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Korea; Sensory Organ Research Institute, Seoul National University Medical Research Center, Seoul, Korea https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1301-2249
  • Jun Ho Lee Department of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Korea; Sensory Organ Research Institute, Seoul National University Medical Research Center, Seoul, Korea https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5519-3263
  • Seung-Ha Oh Department of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Korea; Sensory Organ Research Institute, Seoul National University Medical Research Center, Seoul, Korea https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1284-5070
  • Moo Kyun Park Department of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Korea; Sensory Organ Research Institute, Seoul National University Medical Research Center, Seoul, Korea https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8635-797X
Keywords: listening effort, auditory recall task, pupillometry, working memory capacity, free recall

Abstract

Although numerous behavioural measures to estimate listening effort have been developed in recent years using free recall or dual-task paradigms, relatively little is known about physiological measures, such as pupil dilation, in response to cognitively demanding tasks. This study used a repeated-measure experimental design and aimed to investigate the cognitive resource allocation process of spoken words in an immediate free recall paradigm. Here, ten adults with normal hearing (NH) attended 2 days of trials with 14 trials per day. The listeners heard four-speaker babble noise along with seven sentences and then tried to remember the first words of all seven sentences. Recall performance on the first day only showed a significant serial position effect (p < 0.05). With increasing memory load imposed by the subsequent recall task, baseline pupil size significantly enlarged (p < 0.01), and the PPDs significantly decreased (p < 0.01) during the encoding process, implying that a gradual increase in resources allocated to memory capacity corresponded to a decline in resources allocated to listening. Real-time allocation of cognitive resources during the encoding of spoken words can be monitored independently by the analysis of pupil dilation averaged over multiple trials.

References

Aston-Jones, G., and Cohen, J. D. (2005). “An integrative theory of locus coeruleus- norepinephrine function: adaptive gain and optimal performance,” Annu. Rev. Neurosci., 28, 403-450. doi:10.1146/annurev.neuro.28.061604.135709.

Brunner, E., Domhof, S., and Langer, F. (2002). “Nonparametric analysis of longitudinal data in factorial experiments,” New York, NY: J. Wiley.

Gilzenrat, M. S., Nieuwenhuis, S., Jepma, M., and Cohen, J. D. (2010). “Pupil diameter tracks changes in control state predicted by the adaptive gain theory of locus coeruleus function,” Cogn. Affect. Behav. Neurosci., 10(2), 252- 269. doi:10.3758/CABN.10.2.252.

Hallgren, M., Larsby, B., and Arlinger, S. (2006). “A Swedish version of the Hearing In Noise Test (HINT) for measurement of speech recognition,” Int. J. Audiol., 45(4), 227-237. doi:10.1080/14992020500429583.

Heitz, R. P., Schrock, J. C., Payne, T. W., and Engle, R. W. (2008). “Effects of incentive on working memory capacity: behavioral and pupillometric data,” Psychophysiology, 45(1), 119-129. doi:10.1111/j.1469-8986.2007.00605.x.

Kahneman, D. (1973). “Attention and effort,” Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice-Hall. Kret, M. E., and Sjak-Shie, E. E. (2019). “Preprocessing pupil size data: Guidelines and code,” Behav. Res. Methods, 51(3), 1336-1342. doi:10.3758/s13428-018-1075-y.

Koelewijn, T., Shinn-Cunningham, B. G., Zekveld, A. A., and Kramer, S. E. (2014). “The pupil response is sensitive to divided attention during speech processing,” Hear. Res., 312, 114-120. doi:10.1016/j.heares.2014.03.010.

Lunner, T., Rudner, M., Rosenbom, T., Agren, J., and Ng, E. H. (2016). “Using Speech Recall in Hearing Aid Fitting and Outcome Evaluation Under Ecological Test Conditions,” Ear Hear., 37(Suppl 1), 145S-154S. doi: 110.1097/AUD.0000000000000294.

Moon, S. K., Mun, H. A., Jung, H. K., Soli, S. D., Lee, J. H., and Park, K. (2005). “Development of Sentences for Korean Hearing in Noise Test (KHINT),” Korean J. Otolaryngol., 48, 724-728. doi:10.1097/AUD.0b013e31803154d0.

Ng, E. H., Rudner, M., Lunner, T., Pedersen, M. S., and Ronnberg, J. (2013). “Effects of noise and working memory capacity on memory processing of speech for hearing-aid users,” Int. J. Audiol., 52(7), 433-441. doi:10.3109/14992027.2013.776181.

Ng, E. H., Rudner, M., Lunner, T., and Ronnberg, J. (2015). “Noise reduction improves memory for target language speech in competing native but not foreign language speech,” Ear Hear., 36(1), 82-91. doi:10.1097/AUD.0000000000000080.

Noguchi, K., Gel, Y. R., Brunner, E., and Konietschke, F. (2012). “nparLD: An R Software Package for the Nonparametric Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Factorial Experiments,” Journal of Statistical Software, 50(12), 1-23.

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.

Ohlenforst, B., Zekveld, A. A., Lunner, T., Wendt, D., Naylor, G., Wang, Y., . . . Kramer, S. E. (2017). “Impact of stimulus-related factors and hearing impairment on listening effort as indicated by pupil dilation,” Hear. Res., 351:68-79. doi: 10.1016/j.heares.2017.05.012. Epub 2017 May 1025.

Pichora-Fuller, M. K., Kramer, S. E., Eckert, M. A., Edwards, B., Hornsby, B. W., Humes, L. E., . . . Wingfield, A. (2016). “Hearing Impairment and Cognitive Energy: The Framework for Understanding Effortful Listening (FUEL),” Ear Hear., 37(Suppl 1), 5S-27S. doi: 10.1097/AUD.0000000000000312.

Richmond, L. L., Morrison, A. B., Chein, J. M., and Olson, I. R. (2011). “Working memory training and transfer in older adults,” Psychol. Aging, 26(4), 813- 822. doi:10.1037/a0023631.

Rudner, M., and Lunner, T. (2014). “Cognitive spare capacity and speech communication: a narrative overview,” BioMed Res. Int., 2014, 869726. doi:10.1155/2014/869726.

Simonsen, L. B., Hietkamp, R. K., and Bramsløw, L. (2016). “Learning effects of repeated exposure to Hearing In Noise Test,” Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the British Society of Audiology, Coventry, UK.

Tsukahara, J. S., Harrison, T. L., and Engle, R. W. (2016). “The relationship between baseline pupil size and intelligence,” Cogn. Psychol., 91, 109-123. doi:10.1016/j.cogpsych.2016.10.001.

Winn, M. B., Wendt, D., Koelewijn, T., and Kuchinsky, S. E. (2018). “Best Practices and Advice for Using Pupillometry to Measure Listening Effort: An Introduction for Those Who Want to Get Started,” Trends Hear., 22, 1- 32. doi:10.1177/2331216518800869.

Zekveld, A. A., Koelewijn, T., and Kramer, S. E. (2018). “The Pupil Dilation Response to Auditory Stimuli: Current State of Knowledge,” Trends Hear., 22, 2331216518777174. doi:10.1177/2331216518777174.

Published
2020-04-30
How to Cite
Koo, M., Suh, M.-W., Lee, J. H., Oh, S.-H., & Park, M. K. (2020). Task repetition influence on pupil response during encoding of auditory information in normal-hearing adults. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Auditory and Audiological Research, 7, 405-412. Retrieved from https://proceedings.isaar.eu/index.php/isaarproc/article/view/2019-47
Section
2019/5. Other topics in auditory and audiological research