SLPOtherTrends in hearing2021

Systematic Comparison of Trial Exclusion Criteria for Pupillometry Data Analysis in Individuals With Single-Sided Deafness and Normal Hearing.

Emily A Burg, Tanvi Thakkar, Taylor Fields and 5 others

PMID 34024219

WHAT IT FOUND

Changing how many blinks trigger trial exclusion did not alter speech intelligibility or pupil dilation results.

However, single-sided deafness listeners blinked significantly more in noise than in quiet, suggesting strict exclusion criteria might disproportionately remove difficult trials.

Key findings

01Varying blink exclusion criteria (15%, 30%, or 45% missing data) did not change the finding that speech intelligibility was better and pupil dilation smaller in quiet than in noise for both groups.

02Participants with single-sided deafness exhibited a significantly higher percentage of blinks in the speech masker condition compared to the quiet condition.

03Speech intelligibility decreased significantly more for the single-sided deafness group than for the normal hearing group when moving from quiet to noise.

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.

Already have one?

What it does not show

The sample size was small, particularly for the single-sided deafness group (n=9). There was a large age discrepancy between the SSD group (mean 52 years) and the NH group (mean 22 years), which may have influenced pupil responses. The two groups received different instructions regarding blinking (SSD had no instruction, NH were told to refrain), making direct comparison of blink rates difficult. Results may not generalize to other types of hearing loss or to individuals using hearing aids or cochlear implants. Only the silent period after stimulus offset was analyzed for pupil dilation, ignoring potential blink effects during the listening phase.

Declared interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest. The research was supported by NIH grants (NIDCD and NICHD) and funds from the University of Wisconsin-Madison Department of Surgery.

The easy way to misread this

Do not conclude that blink criteria are irrelevant to pupillometry analysis. While the main effects of noise on effort were stable, the SSD group blinked more in noise, meaning strict criteria could systematically remove the most difficult trials and bias estimates of effort in future studies.

Read it on PubMed →