Koelewijn Thomas, Versfeld Niek J, Kramer Sophia E
Section Ear & Hearing, Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery and Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Section Ear & Hearing, Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery and Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Hear Res. 2017 Oct;354:56-63. doi: 10.1016/j.heares.2017.08.006. Epub 2017 Aug 30.
For people with hearing difficulties, following a conversation in a noisy environment requires substantial cognitive processing, which is often perceived as effortful. Recent studies with normal hearing (NH) listeners showed that the pupil dilation response, a measure of cognitive processing load, is affected by 'attention related' processes. How these processes affect the pupil dilation response for hearing impaired (HI) listeners remains unknown. Therefore, the current study investigated the effect of auditory attention on various pupil response parameters for 15 NH adults (median age 51 yrs.) and 15 adults with mild to moderate sensorineural hearing loss (median age 52 yrs.). Both groups listened to two different sentences presented simultaneously, one to each ear and partially masked by stationary noise. Participants had to repeat either both sentences or only one, for which they had to divide or focus attention, respectively. When repeating one sentence, the target sentence location (left or right) was either randomized or blocked across trials, which in the latter case allowed for a better spatial focus of attention. The speech-to-noise ratio was adjusted to yield about 50% sentences correct for each task and condition. NH participants had lower ('better') speech reception thresholds (SRT) than HI participants. The pupil measures showed no between-group effects, with the exception of a shorter peak latency for HI participants, which indicated a shorter processing time. Both groups showed higher SRTs and a larger pupil dilation response when two sentences were processed instead of one. Additionally, SRTs were higher and dilation responses were larger for both groups when the target location was randomized instead of fixed. We conclude that although HI participants could cope with less noise than the NH group, their ability to focus attention on a single talker, thereby improving SRTs and lowering cognitive processing load, was preserved. Shorter peak latencies could indicate that HI listeners adapt their listening strategy by not processing some information, which reduces processing time and thereby listening effort.
对于听力有困难的人来说,在嘈杂环境中跟上一段对话需要大量的认知处理,这通常会让人感到吃力。最近对听力正常(NH)的听众进行的研究表明,瞳孔扩张反应作为认知处理负荷的一种度量,会受到“注意力相关”过程的影响。然而,这些过程如何影响听力受损(HI)听众的瞳孔扩张反应仍不清楚。因此,本研究调查了听觉注意力对15名NH成年人(中位年龄51岁)和15名轻度至中度感音神经性听力损失成年人(中位年龄52岁)的各种瞳孔反应参数的影响。两组都听同时呈现的两个不同句子,每只耳朵听一个,且部分被稳态噪声掩盖。参与者必须重复两个句子或者只重复一个,分别对应需要分散注意力或集中注意力的情况。当只重复一个句子时,目标句子的位置(左或右)在各次试验中要么随机化,要么成组排列,在后一种情况下能更好地在空间上集中注意力。语音信噪比被调整为在每个任务和条件下约50%的句子正确。NH参与者的言语接受阈(SRT)比HI参与者低(“更好”)。瞳孔测量结果显示,除了HI参与者的峰值潜伏期较短,表明处理时间较短外,两组之间没有差异。当处理两个句子而非一个句子时,两组的SRT都更高,瞳孔扩张反应也更大。此外,当目标位置随机化而非固定时,两组的SRT都更高,扩张反应也更大。我们得出结论,尽管HI参与者比NH组能耐受的噪声更少,但他们集中注意力于单个说话者的能力得以保留,从而提高了SRT并降低了认知处理负荷。较短的峰值潜伏期可能表明HI听众通过不处理某些信息来调整他们的听力策略,这减少了处理时间,从而降低了听力努力。