Measuring Listening Effort: Convergent Validity, Sensitivity, and Links With Cognitive and Personality Measures

Purpose: Listening effort (LE) describes the attentional or cognitive requirements for successful listening. Despite substantial theoretical and clinical interest in LE, inconsistent operationalization makes it difficult to make generalizations across studies. The aims of this large-scale validation study were to evaluate the convergent validity and sensitivity of commonly used measures of LE and assess how scores on those tasks relate to cognitive and personality variables. Method: Young adults with normal hearing (N = 111) completed 7 tasks designed to measure LE, 5 tests of cognitive ability, and 2 personality measures. Results: Scores on some behavioral LE tasks were moderately intercorrelated but were generally not correlated with subjective and physiological measures of LE, suggesting that these tasks may not be tapping into the same underlying construct. LE measures differed in their sensitivity to changes in signal-to-noise ratio and the extent to which they correlated with cognitive and personality variables. Conclusions: Given that LE measures do not show consistent, strong intercorrelations and differ in their relationships with cognitive and personality predictors, these findings suggest caution in generalizing across studies that use different measures of LE. The results also indicate that people with greater cognitive ability appear to use their resources more efficiently, thereby diminishing the detrimental effects associated with increased background noise during language processing.

Keep Listening: Grammatical Context Reduces But Does Not Eliminate Activation of Unexpected Words

To understand spoken language, listeners combine acoustic-phonetic input with expectations derived from context (Dahan & Magnuson, 2006). Eye-tracking studies on semantic context have demonstrated that the activation levels of competing lexical candidates depend on the relative strengths of the bottom-up input and top-down expectations (cf. Dahan & Tanenhaus, 2004). In the grammatical realm, however, graded effects of context on lexical competition have been predicted (Magnuson, Tanenhaus, & Aslin, 2008), but not demonstrated. In the current eye-tracking study, participants were presented with target words in grammatically unconstraining (e.g., “The word is . . . ”) or constraining (e.g., “They thought about the . . .”) contexts. In the grammatically constrained, identity-spliced trials, in which phonetic information from one token of the target was spliced into another token of the target, fixations to the competitor did not differ from those to distractors. However, in the grammatically constrained, cross-spliced trials, in which phonetic information from the competitor was cross-spliced into the target to increase bottom-up support for that competitor, participants fixated more on contextually inappropriate competitors than phonologically unrelated distractors, demonstrating that sufficiently strong acoustic-phonetic input can overcome contextual constraints. Thus, although grammatical context constrains lexical activation, listeners remain sensitive to the bottom-up input. Taken together, these results suggest that lexical activation is dependent upon the interplay of acoustic-phonetic input and top-down expectations derived from grammatical context.