How Temporal Overlap in Task Processing and Acoustic Load Affect Listening Effort in Adults.
Julia Seitz, Jana R Berger, Maria Anastasia Sinarso and 1 others
PMID 42641134WHAT IT FOUND
In 25 normal-hearing young adults, splitting attention between listening and a visual task raised listening effort more than background speech noise did, even though word understanding stayed around 90%.
Mild room echo in quiet actually lowered effort compared to a dead-silent room.
Key findings
01Multi-talker babble significantly increased both response times on the word recognition task and subjective listening effort ratings compared to silence.
02Shorter time intervals between a visual task and a listening task (0.05 s and 0.25 s versus 1.5 s or single task) significantly increased both response times and subjective effort ratings, even though speech intelligibility stayed high.
03In quiet conditions, mild room reverberation (T30 = 0.49 s) produced significantly shorter response times than an anechoic environment, the opposite of what the FUEL model predicts.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for SLPs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
All 25 participants were normal-hearing adults aged 20–30; nothing here applies to hearing-impaired, older, or cognitively impaired listeners. Single session of about one hour with 8 blocks; fatigue or order effects across blocks cannot be ruled out despite counterbalancing. Only one level of room reverberation was tested (T30 = 0.49 s); the finding that it helped in quiet cannot be generalised to other reverberation times. The SNR was fixed at 0 dB; more adverse noise conditions might change the interaction pattern. The visual task was a simple left/right animal-picture decision; real-world visual distractions are more complex and variable. German-language stimuli; generalisability to other languages is untested. The sample size (25) was chosen by reference to prior studies rather than a formal power calculation for the specific interactions tested.
Declared interests
Funded by the European Union's Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Program (grant No. 874724, Equal-Life). The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest.
The easy way to misread this
Do not read the room-effects finding as evidence that adding reverberation to a therapy room will reduce a patient's listening effort. The effect was observed at a single mild level (T30 = 0.49 s) in a virtual scene with normal-hearing 20–30-year-olds, it contradicts the FUEL model that most clinicians use, and the authors themselves call for replication across a range of reverberation times before any practical conclusion can be drawn. Likewise, the multitasking effect was measured with a simple visual left/right decision, not with the complex visual demands a patient faces in a real clinic or home.