Listen before you drive: the effect of voice familiarity on listening comprehension and driving performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Voice familiarity has been reported to reduce cognitive load in complex listening environments. The extent to which the reduction in listening effort allows for mental resources to be reallocated to other complex tasks needs further investigation. We sought to answer whether a familiar audiobook narrator provides benefits to (1) listening comprehension and/or (2) driving performance. DESIGN: A double-blind between-groups design was implemented. Participants were randomly assigned to the Familiar group or the Unfamiliar group. STUDY SAMPLE: = 18 female). Participants first listened to an audiobook read by either Voice 1 (Familiar condition) or Voice 2 (Unfamiliar condition). Then they completed a virtual reality driving task while listening to a second audiobook, always read by Voice 1. Audiobook comprehension (30-question multiple-choice test) and driving performance (number of driving errors made) were recorded. RESULTS: Participants in the Familiar group made fewer driving errors than participants in the Unfamiliar group. There were no differences in listening comprehension. CONCLUSIONS: Increased voice familiarity positively impacts behaviour (i.e. reduced driving errors) in normal-hearing adults. We discuss our findings in the context of effortful listening frameworks.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".