liu.seSearch for publications in DiVA
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • oxford
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
In a Concurrent Memory and Auditory Perception Task, the Pupil Dilation Response Is More Sensitive to Memory Load Than to Auditory Stimulus Characteristics
Linköping University, Department of Behavioural Sciences and Learning, Disability Research. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences. Linköping University, The Swedish Institute for Disability Research. Vrije Univ Amsterdam, Netherlands.ORCID iD: 0000-0003-1320-6908
Section Ear & Hearing, Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery and Amsterdam Public Health research institute VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Linköping University, Department of Behavioural Sciences and Learning, Disability Research. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences. Linköping University, The Swedish Institute for Disability Research.
Linköping University, Department of Behavioural Sciences and Learning, Disability Research. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences. Linköping University, The Swedish Institute for Disability Research.
2019 (English)In: Ear and Hearing, ISSN 0196-0202, E-ISSN 1538-4667, Vol. 40, no 2, p. 272-286Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Objectives: Speech understanding may be cognitively demanding, but it can be enhanced when semantically related text cues precede auditory sentences. The present study aimed to determine whether (a) providing text cues reduces pupil dilation, a measure of cognitive load, during listening to sentences, (b) repeating the sentences aloud affects recall accuracy and pupil dilation during recall of cue words, and (c) semantic relatedness between cues and sentences affects recall accuracy and pupil dilation during recall of cue words.

Design: Sentence repetition following text cues and recall of the text cues were tested. Twenty-six participants (mean age, 22 years) with normal hearing listened to masked sentences. On each trial, a set of four-word cues was presented visually as text preceding the auditory presentation of a sentence whose meaning was either related or unrelated to the cues. On each trial, participants first read the cue words, then listened to a sentence. Following this they spoke aloud either the cue words or the sentence, according to instruction, and finally on all trials orally recalled the cues. Peak pupil dilation was measured throughout listening and recall on each trial. Additionally, participants completed a test measuring the ability to perceive degraded verbal text information and three working memory tests (a reading span test, a size-comparison span test, and a test of memory updating).

Results: Cue words that were semantically related to the sentence facilitated sentence repetition but did not reduce pupil dilation. Recall was poorer and there were more intrusion errors when the cue words were related to the sentences. Recall was also poorer when sentences were repeated aloud. Both behavioral effects were associated with greater pupil dilation. Larger reading span capacity and smaller size-comparison span were associated with larger peak pupil dilation during listening. Furthermore, larger reading span and greater memory updating ability were both associated with better cue recall overall.

Conclusions: Although sentence-related word cues facilitate sentence repetition, our results indicate that they do not reduce cognitive load during listening in noise with a concurrent memory load. As expected, higher working memory capacity was associated with better recall of the cues. Unexpectedly, however, semantic relatedness with the sentence reduced word cue recall accuracy and increased intrusion errors, suggesting an effect of semantic confusion. Further, speaking the sentence aloud also reduced word cue recall accuracy, probably due to articulatory suppression. Importantly, imposing a memory load during listening to sentences resulted in the absence of formerly established strong effects of speech intelligibility on the pupil dilation response. This nullified intelligibility effect demonstrates that the pupil dilation response to a cognitive (memory) task can completely overshadow the effect of perceptual factors on the pupil dilation response. This highlights the importance of taking cognitive task load into account during auditory testing.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2019. Vol. 40, no 2, p. 272-286
Keywords [en]
Listening effort; Memory processing; Pupil dilation response; Speech perception
National Category
Other Medical Sciences not elsewhere specified
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-155558DOI: 10.1097/AUD.0000000000000612ISI: 000459769700006PubMedID: 29923867Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-85061056453OAI: oai:DiVA.org:liu-155558DiVA, id: diva2:1299383
Note

Funding Agencies|Swedish Research Council

Available from: 2019-03-26 Created: 2019-03-26 Last updated: 2019-06-27Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMedScopus

Authority records BETA

Zekveld, AdrianaRönnberg, JerkerRudner, Mary

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Zekveld, AdrianaRönnberg, JerkerRudner, Mary
By organisation
Disability ResearchFaculty of Arts and SciencesThe Swedish Institute for Disability Research
In the same journal
Ear and Hearing
Other Medical Sciences not elsewhere specified

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn
Total: 18 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • oxford
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf