Acoustic- Versus Intelligibility-Based Assessment of Subjective Listening Difficulty Measured With the Repeat-Recall...

To contrast interpretations of listening effort ratings when judged against acoustic- versus intelligibility-based normative references.

Existing data collected from 66 normal-hearing adult listeners, comprising 2730 trials of the Repeat-Recall Test, were used to establish norms of subjective listening effort ratings for six ranges of intelligibility. Data from 21 aided hearing-impaired listeners were then used to contrast intelligibility-based norms against acoustic-based norms when interpreting listening effort ratings measured in omnidirectional and directional microphone conditions.

Whereas acoustic-based norms effectively demonstrated reduced effort for directional versus omnidirectional microphone modes, intelligibility-based references controlled for listeners' performance biases and improved the consistency with which subjective ratings were ranked across the two microphone conditions.

The choice of normative reference should be carefully considered when judging listening effort ratings from hearing-impaired individuals against those of their normal-hearing peers. Whereas acoustic-based references may be more useful for evaluating the benefits of hearing aid technology, intelligibility-based references may be better suited to identifying listeners with poor subjective experiences for speech-in-noise related to factors beyond intelligibility.