Listening effort mitigates rollover effects on speech-in-noise perception
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Increasing the sound intensity may lead to worse speech understanding, especially in noise. This is known as the “Rollover” phenomenon. There is mounting evidence that listening effort plays an important role in challenging listening conditions and can be directly quantified with objective measures such as pupil dilation. However, there is limited understanding of how listening effort relates to rollover in speech understanding. We hypothesized that listening effort plays an essential role in mitigating rollover effects to differential extents across age and hearing status. We recruited across the adult lifespan (N = 50, 20–83 years) with different hearing statuses in acoustic listeners and cochlear implant users to perform a speech discrimination task. Minimal word pairs were presented both in quiet and in 0 dB SNR babble noise, ranging from 35–85 dB SPL. Pupil area was tracked simultaneously with behavioral responses during the task. We found that normal-hearing listeners are fully able to utilize effort contributions to minimize rollover effects between in quiet and in noise conditions, with diminishing benefit as a function of age and increased hearing loss. The results of this project could broadly influence how to design future hearing devices and interventions that maximize hearing abilities for those affected by hearing loss.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".