The effect of changing the secondary task in dual-task paradigms for measuring listening effort

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of changing the secondary task in dual-task paradigms that measure listening effort. Specifically, the effects of increasing the secondary task complexity or the depth of processing on a paradigm's sensitivity to changes in listening effort were quantified in a series of two experiments. Specific factors investigated within each experiment were background noise and visual cues.

Participants in Experiment 1 were adults with normal hearing (mean age 23 years) and participants in Experiment 2 were adults with mild sloping to moderately severe sensorineural hearing loss (mean age 60.1 years). In both experiments, participants were tested using three dual-task paradigms. These paradigms had identical primary tasks, which were always monosyllable word recognition. The secondary tasks were all physical reaction time measures. The stimulus for the secondary task varied by paradigm and was a (1) simple visual probe, (2) a complex visual probe, or (3) the category of word presented. In this way, the secondary tasks mainly varied from the simple paradigm by either complexity or depth of speech processing. Using all three paradigms, participants were tested in four conditions, (1) auditory-only stimuli in quiet, (2) auditory-only stimuli in noise, (3) auditory-visual stimuli in quiet, and (4) auditory-visual stimuli in noise. During auditory-visual conditions, the talker's face was visible. Signal-to-noise ratios used during conditions with background noise were set individually so word recognition performance was matched in auditory-only and auditory-visual conditions. In noise, word recognition performance was approximately 80% and 65% for Experiments 1 and 2, respectively.

For both experiments, word recognition performance was stable across the three paradigms, confirming that none of the secondary tasks interfered with the primary task. In Experiment 1 (listeners with normal hearing), analysis of median reaction times revealed a significant main effect of background noise on listening effort only with the paradigm that required deep processing. Visual cues did not change listening effort as measured with any of the three dual-task paradigms. In Experiment 2 (listeners with hearing loss), analysis of median reaction times revealed expected significant effects of background noise using all three paradigms, but no significant effects of visual cues.

None of the dual-task paradigms were sensitive to the effects of visual cues. Furthermore, changing the complexity of the secondary task did not change dual-task paradigm sensitivity to the effects of background noise on listening effort for either group of listeners. However, the paradigm whose secondary task involved deeper processing was more sensitive to the effects of background noise for both groups of listeners. While this paradigm differed from the others in several respects, depth of processing may be partially responsible for the increased sensitivity. Therefore, this paradigm may be a valuable tool for evaluating other factors that affect listening effort.