The distribution of energy across the noise spectrum provides the primary cues for the identification of a fricative. Formant transitions have been reported to play a role in identification of some fricatives, but the combined results so far are conflicting. We report five experiments testing the hypothesis that listeners differ in their use of formant transitions as a function of the presence of spectrally similar fricatives in their native language. Dutch, English, German, Polish, and Spanish native listeners performed phoneme monitoring experiments with pseudowords containing either coherent or misleading formant transitions for the fricatives / s / and / f /. Listeners of German and Dutch, both languages without spectrally similar fricatives, were not affected by the misleading formant transitions. Listeners of the remaining languages were misled by incorrect formant transitions. In an untimed labeling experiment both Dutch and Spanish listeners provided goodness ratings that revealed sensitivity to the acoustic manipulation. We conclude that all listeners may be sensitive to mismatching information at a low auditory level, but that they do not necessarily take full advantage of all available systematic acoustic variation when identifying phonemes. Formant transitions may be most useful for listeners of languages with spectrally similar fricatives.

Understanding speech is effortless in ideal situations, and although adverse conditions, such as caused by hearing impairment, often render it an effortful task, they do not necessarily suspend speech comprehension. A prime example of this is speech perception by cochlear implant users, whose hearing prostheses transmit speech as a significantly degraded signal. It is yet unknown how mechanisms of speech processing deal with such degraded signals, and whether they are affected by effortful processing of speech. This paper compares the automatic process of lexical competition between natural and degraded speech, and combines gaze fixations, which capture the course of lexical disambiguation, with pupillometry, which quantifies the mental effort involved in processing speech. Listeners’ ocular responses were recorded during disambiguation of lexical embeddings with matching and mismatching durational cues. Durational cues were selected due to their substantial role in listeners’ quick limitation of the number of lexical candidates for lexical access in natural speech. Results showed that lexical competition increased mental effort in processing natural stimuli in particular in presence of mismatching cues. Signal degradation reduced listeners’ ability to quickly integrate durational cues in lexical selection, and delayed and prolonged lexical competition. The effort of processing degraded speech was increased overall, and because it had its sources at the pre-lexical level this effect can be attributed to listening to degraded speech rather than to lexical disambiguation. In sum, the course of lexical competition was largely comparable for natural and degraded speech, but showed crucial shifts in timing, and different sources of increased mental effort. We argue that well-timed progress of information from sensory to pre-lexical and lexical stages of processing, which is the result of perceptual adaptation during speech development, is the reason why in ideal situations speech is perceived as an undemanding task. Degradation of the signal or the receiver channel can quickly bring this well-adjusted timing out of balance and lead to increase in mental effort. Incomplete and effortful processing at the early pre-lexical stages has its consequences on lexical processing as it adds uncertainty to the forming and revising of lexical hypotheses.

External degradations in incoming speech reduce understanding, and hearing impairment further compounds the problem. While cognitive mechanisms alleviate some of the difficulties, their effectiveness may change with age. In our research, reviewed here, we investigated cognitive compensation with hearing impairment, cochlear implants, and aging, via (a) phonemic restoration as a measure of top-down filling of missing speech, (b) listening effort and response times as a measure of increased cognitive processing, and (c) visual world paradigm and eye gazing as a measure of the use of context and its time course. Our results indicate that between speech degradations and their cognitive compensation, there is a fine balance that seems to vary greatly across individuals. Hearing impairment or inadequate hearing device settings may limit compensation benefits. Cochlear implants seem to allow the effective use of sentential context, but likely at the cost of delayed processing. Linguistic and lexical knowledge, which play an important role in compensation, may be successfully employed in advanced age, as some compensatory mechanisms seem to be preserved. These findings indicate that cognitive compensation in hearing impairment can be highly complicated—not always absent, but also not easily predicted by speech intelligibility tests only.

Assessing effort in speech comprehension for hearing-impaired (HI) listeners is important, as effortful processing of speech can limit their hearing rehabilitation. We examined the measure of pupil dilation in its capacity to accommodate the heterogeneity that is present within clinical populations by studying lexical access in users with sensorineural hearing loss, who perceive speech via cochlear implants (CIs). We compared the pupillary responses of 15 experienced CI users and 14 age-matched normal-hearing (NH) controls during auditory lexical decision. A growth curve analysis was applied to compare the responses between the groups. NH listeners showed a coherent pattern of pupil dilation that reflects the task demands of the experimental manipulation and a homogenous time course of dilation. CI listeners showed more variability in the morphology of pupil dilation curves, potentially reflecting variable sources of effort across individuals. In follow-up analyses, we examined how speech perception, a task that relies on multiple stages of perceptual analyses, poses multiple sources of increased effort for HI listeners, wherefore we might not be measuring the same source of effort for HI as for NH listeners. We argue that interindividual variability among HI listeners can be clinically meaningful in attesting not only the magnitude but also the locus of increased effort. The understanding of individual variations in effort requires experimental paradigms that (a) differentiate the task demands during speech comprehension, (b) capture pupil dilation in its time course per individual listeners, and (c) investigate the range of individual variability present within clinical and NH populations.