Reduced semantic context and signal-to-noise ratio increase listening effort as measured using functional near-infrared spectroscopy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: Understanding speech in noise can be highly effortful. Decreasing the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of speech increases listening effort, but it is relatively unclear if decreasing the level of semantic context does as well. The current study used functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) to evaluate two primary hypotheses: (1) listening effort (operationalized as oxygenation of the left lateral PFC) increases as the SNR decreases and (2) listening effort increases as context decreases. Design: Twenty-eight younger adults with normal hearing completed the Revised Speech Perception in Noise (R-SPIN) Test, in which they listened to sentences and reported the final word. These sentences either had an easy SNR (+4 dB) or a hard SNR (-2 dB), and were either low in semantic context (e.g., “Tom could have thought about the sport”) or high in context (e.g., “She had to vacuum the rug”). PFC oxygenation was measured throughout using fNIRS. Results: Accuracy on the R-SPIN Test was worse when the SNR was hard than when it was easy, and worse for sentences low in semantic context than high in context. Similarly, oxygenation across the entire PFC (including the left lateral PFC) was greater when the SNR was hard, and left lateral PFC oxygenation was greater when context was low. Conclusions: These results suggest that activation of the left lateral PFC (interpreted here as reflecting listening effort) increases to compensate for acoustic and linguistic challenges. This may reflect the increased engagement of domain-general and domain-specific processes subserved by the DLPFC (e.g., cognitive control) and IFG (e.g., predicting the sensory consequences of articulatory gestures), respectively.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".