↓ Skip to main content

Autonomic Nervous System Responses During Perception of Masked Speech may Reflect Constructs other than Subjective Listening Effort

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
77 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Autonomic Nervous System Responses During Perception of Masked Speech may Reflect Constructs other than Subjective Listening Effort
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, March 2016
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00263
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alexander L. Francis, Megan K. MacPherson, Bharath Chandrasekaran, Ann M. Alvar

Abstract

Typically, understanding speech seems effortless and automatic. However, a variety of factors may, independently or interactively, make listening more effortful. Physiological measures may help to distinguish between the application of different cognitive mechanisms whose operation is perceived as effortful. In the present study, physiological and behavioral measures associated with task demand were collected along with behavioral measures of performance while participants listened to and repeated sentences. The goal was to measure psychophysiological reactivity associated with three degraded listening conditions, each of which differed in terms of the source of the difficulty (distortion, energetic masking, and informational masking), and therefore were expected to engage different cognitive mechanisms. These conditions were chosen to be matched for overall performance (keywords correct), and were compared to listening to unmasked speech produced by a natural voice. The three degraded conditions were: (1) Unmasked speech produced by a computer speech synthesizer, (2) Speech produced by a natural voice and masked byspeech-shaped noise and (3) Speech produced by a natural voice and masked by two-talker babble. Masked conditions were both presented at a -8 dB signal to noise ratio (SNR), a level shown in previous research to result in comparable levels of performance for these stimuli and maskers. Performance was measured in terms of proportion of key words identified correctly, and task demand or effort was quantified subjectively by self-report. Measures of psychophysiological reactivity included electrodermal (skin conductance) response frequency and amplitude, blood pulse amplitude and pulse rate. Results suggest that the two masked conditions evoked stronger psychophysiological reactivity than did the two unmasked conditions even when behavioral measures of listening performance and listeners' subjective perception of task demand were comparable across the three degraded conditions.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 77 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Belgium 1 1%
Unknown 76 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 22%
Student > Master 13 17%
Researcher 12 16%
Student > Bachelor 5 6%
Professor > Associate Professor 5 6%
Other 16 21%
Unknown 9 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 20 26%
Neuroscience 9 12%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 10%
Linguistics 7 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 6%
Other 13 17%
Unknown 15 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 February 2016.
All research outputs
#18,836,331
of 23,344,526 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#22,972
of 31,066 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#218,385
of 299,603 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#386
of 457 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,344,526 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 31,066 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.6. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 299,603 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 457 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.