4.6 Article

Pupil size varies with word listening and response selection difficulty in older adults with hearing loss

期刊

PSYCHOPHYSIOLOGY
卷 50, 期 1, 页码 23-34

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-8986.2012.01477.x

关键词

Age-related hearing loss; Speech perception; Pupillometry; Growth curve analysis

资金

  1. Hearing Health Foundation Centurion Clinical Research Award
  2. National Institute on Deafness and other Communication Disorders [P50 DC00422]
  3. Research Facilities Improvement Program from the National Center for Research Resources, NIH [C06 RR14516]
  4. South Carolina Clinical and Translational (SCTR) Institute
  5. Medical University of South Carolina, NIH/NCRR [UL1 RR029882]
  6. NATIONAL CENTER FOR ADVANCING TRANSLATIONAL SCIENCES [UL1TR000062] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  7. NATIONAL CENTER FOR RESEARCH RESOURCES [UL1RR029882, C06RR014516] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  8. NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON DEAFNESS AND OTHER COMMUNICATION DISORDERS [P50DC000422] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Listening to speech in noise can be exhausting, especially for older adults with impaired hearing. Pupil dilation is thought to track the difficulty associated with listening to speech at various intelligibility levels for young and middle-aged adults. This study examined changes in the pupil response with acoustic and lexical manipulations of difficulty in older adults with hearing loss. Participants identified words at two signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs) among options that could include a similar-sounding lexical competitor. Growth Curve Analyses revealed that the pupil response was affected by an SNR?x?Lexical competition interaction, such that it was larger and more delayed and sustained in the harder SNR condition, particularly in the presence of lexical competition. Pupillometry detected these effects for correct trials and across reaction times, suggesting it provides additional evidence of task difficulty than behavioral measures alone.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据