American journal of audiology · 2026
Revisiting Dual-Task Paradigms for Listening Effort: Dual-Task Interference in Adults With and Without Hearing Loss.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Van Goylen Louise, Keppler Hannah, Kestens Katrien
Аннотация
PURPOSE: In light of concerns about the traditional dual-task approach for behavioral listening effort, this study explored a novel dual-task interference (DTI)-based method in adults with and without hearing loss (HL).
METHOD: Fifty-two normal-hearing individuals and 52 with HL were matched for age, sex, and education (M age overall = 67.38 years). The dual-task paradigm combined a primary speech understanding task under five listening conditions with a secondary visual memory task. Dual-task effects (DTEs; performance change from baseline to dual-task) were calculated for both tasks. Linear mixed models assessed the effects of listening condition and hearing group on both DTEs. To explore individual task prioritization strategies, interference patterns were derived by plotting both DTEs, and Fisher's exact tests were used to examine associations between interference patterns and hearing groups across listening conditions.
RESULTS: Linear mixed models revealed significantly higher DTE values for the primary task at +4 dB SNR compared to +8 dB SNR, and higher secondary-task DTE values at 0 and -4 dB SNR compared to the other conditions. No significant effects of hearing group or interactions were found. Fisher's exact tests showed no significant group differences in DTI patterns.
CONCLUSIONS: The DTI approach highlights individual DTI patterns, suggesting dynamic resource allocation and task prioritization under competing demands. These findings provide additional insight into the current use of dual-task paradigms for listening effort and support a broader interpretation of their role, including their potential for individualized counseling.
METHOD: Fifty-two normal-hearing individuals and 52 with HL were matched for age, sex, and education (M age overall = 67.38 years). The dual-task paradigm combined a primary speech understanding task under five listening conditions with a secondary visual memory task. Dual-task effects (DTEs; performance change from baseline to dual-task) were calculated for both tasks. Linear mixed models assessed the effects of listening condition and hearing group on both DTEs. To explore individual task prioritization strategies, interference patterns were derived by plotting both DTEs, and Fisher's exact tests were used to examine associations between interference patterns and hearing groups across listening conditions.
RESULTS: Linear mixed models revealed significantly higher DTE values for the primary task at +4 dB SNR compared to +8 dB SNR, and higher secondary-task DTE values at 0 and -4 dB SNR compared to the other conditions. No significant effects of hearing group or interactions were found. Fisher's exact tests showed no significant group differences in DTI patterns.
CONCLUSIONS: The DTI approach highlights individual DTI patterns, suggesting dynamic resource allocation and task prioritization under competing demands. These findings provide additional insight into the current use of dual-task paradigms for listening effort and support a broader interpretation of their role, including their potential for individualized counseling.