Luminance effects on pupil dilation in speech-in-noise recognition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is an increasing interest in the field of audiology and speech communication to measure the effort that it takes to listen in noisy environments, with obvious implications for populations suffering from hearing loss. Pupillometry offers one avenue to make progress in this enterprise but important methodological questions remain to be addressed before such tools can serve practical applications. Typically, cocktail-party situations may occur in less-than-ideal lighting conditions, e.g. a pub or a restaurant, and it is unclear how robust pupil dynamics are to luminance changes. In this study, we first used a well-known paradigm where sentences were presented at different signal-to-noise ratios (SNR), all conducive of good intelligibility. This enabled us to replicate findings, e.g. a larger and later peak pupil dilation (PPD) at adverse SNR, or when the sentences were misunderstood, and to investigate the dependency of the PPD on sentence duration. A second experiment reiterated two of the SNR levels, 0 and +14 dB, but measured at 0, 75, and 220 lux. The results showed that the impact of luminance on the SNR effect was non-monotonic (sub-optimal in darkness or in bright light), and as such, there is no trivial way to derive pupillary metrics that are robust to differences in background light, posing considerable constraints for applications of pupillometry in daily life. Our findings raise an under-examined but crucial issue when designing and understanding listening effort studies using pupillometry, and offer important insights to future clinical application of pupillometry across sites.
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".