SLPOtherTrends in hearing2026

The Relation Between Sustained Listening Under Difficult Conditions and Behavioral, Subjective, and Physiological Indicators of Fatigue.

Ewald Strasser, Thomas Brand, Jan Rennies

PMID 42042694

WHAT IT FOUND

Hard speech-in-noise listening for about 75 minutes left young, normal-hearing adults reporting more tiredness and showing a bigger rise in spontaneous pupil wobble, a sleepiness marker, largest in the hardest condition.

Responses got faster, not slower.

Key findings

01Subjective fatigue rose from the start to the end of each session, and the size of the rise was the same whichever way the speech had been processed.

02Pupil unrest, a marker of sleepiness, rose from before to after the session in 69 of 80 sessions, and rose most in the hardest listening condition (unprocessed, competing talkers in the same place as the target); every other condition rose significantly less.

03Speech recognition accuracy fell over the session only in the unprocessed-separated and beamformer conditions, while response times got shorter rather than longer in both the speech and the memory task.

STILL TO COME

How it was doneWhat they found

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

Only 20 people took part, all aged 19 to 29 and all with self-reported normal hearing, so the results say nothing about older listeners or people with hearing loss. The memory task was deliberately made demanding, and the authors say it may be too hard for older or hearing-impaired listeners. Time of day was not controlled, and pupil activity drifts naturally across the day, which could have added noise to the pupil measure. The fatigue questionnaire used only six items; the authors say that is fine for tracking change within a session but the scores should not be compared with published norms. Not everyone showed the pupil rise: in some sessions it stayed flat or fell. The authors state that the design cannot separate how hard the task was from how much effort each person chose to put in. Two people who started the study did not complete the sessions.

Declared interests

This work was funded by the German Research Foundation (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft), project 352015383-SFB 1330 A1. The authors declared no competing interests.

The easy way to misread this

Do not read this as evidence that hard listening makes people perform worse. Accuracy only fell in two of the four processing conditions, responses got faster rather than slower, and the authors say the design cannot separate task difficulty from how much effort listeners put in. None of it was tested in people with hearing loss.

Summarised by AI from the full paper, without a clinician reviewing it. Check it against the source before it changes what you do. Read it on PubMed →