Within the field of hearing science, pupillometry is a widely used method for quantifying listening effort. Its use in research is growing exponentially, and many labs are (considering) applying pupillometry for the first time. Hence, there is a growing need for a methods paper on pupillometry covering topics spanning from experiment logistics and timing to data cleaning and what parameters to analyze. This article contains the basic information and considerations needed to plan, set up, and interpret a pupillometry experiment, as well as commentary about how to interpret the response. Included are practicalities like minimal system requirements for recording a pupil response and specifications for peripheral, equipment, experiment logistics and constraints, and different kinds of data processing. Additional details include participant inclusion and exclusion criteria and some methodological considerations that might not be necessary in other auditory experiments. We discuss what data should be recorded and how to monitor the data quality during recording in order to minimize artifacts. Data processing and analysis are considered as well. Finally, we share insights from the collective experience of the authors and discuss some of the challenges that still lie ahead.

Previous research has reported effects of masker type and signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) on listening effort, as indicated by the peak pupil dilation (PPD) relative to baseline during speech recognition. At about 50% correct sentence recognition performance, increasing SNRs generally results in declining PPDs, indicating reduced effort. However, the decline in PPD over SNRs has been observed to be less pronounced for hearing-impaired (HI) compared to normal-hearing (NH) listeners. The presence of a competing talker during speech recognition generally resulted in larger PPDs as compared to the presence of a fluctuating or stationary background noise. The aim of the present study was to examine the interplay between hearing-status, a broad range of SNRs corresponding to sentence recognition performance varying from 0 to 100% correct, and different masker types (stationary noise and single-talker masker) on the PPD during speech perception. Twenty-five HI and 32 age-matched NH participants listened to sentences across a broad range of SNRs, masked with speech from a single talker (-25 dB to +15 dB SNR) or with stationary noise (-12 dB to +16 dB). Correct sentence recognition scores and pupil responses were recorded during stimulus presentation. With a stationary masker, NH listeners show maximum PPD across a relatively narrow range of low SNRs, while HI listeners show relatively large PPD across a wide range of ecological SNRs. With the single-talker masker, maximum PPD was observed in the mid-range of SNRs around 50% correct sentence recognition performance, while smaller PPDs were observed at lower and higher SNRs. Mixed-model ANOVAs revealed significant interactions between hearing-status and SNR on the PPD for both masker types. Our data show a different pattern of PPDs across SNRs between groups, which indicates that listening and the allocation of effort during listening in daily life environments may be different for NH and HI listeners.

Recent studies have shown that activating the noise reduction scheme in hearing aids results in a smaller peak pupil dilation (PPD), indicating reduced listening effort, at 50% and 95% correct sentence recognition with a 4-talker masker. The objective of this study was to measure the effect of the noise reduction scheme (on or off) on PPD and sentence recognition across a wide range of signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs) from +16 dB to -12 dB and two masker types (4-talker and stationary noise). Relatively low PPDs were observed at very low (-12 dB) and very high (+16 dB to +8 dB) SNRs presumably due to 'giving up' and 'easy listening', respectively. The maximum PPD was observed with SNRs at approximately 50% correct sentence recognition. Sentence recognition with both masker types was significantly improved by the noise reduction scheme, which corresponds to the shift in performance from SNR function at approximately 5 dB toward a lower SNR. This intelligibility effect was accompanied by a corresponding effect on the PPD, shifting the peak by approximately 4 dB toward a lower SNR. In addition, with the 4-talker masker, when the noise reduction scheme was active, the PPD was smaller overall than that when the scheme was inactive. We conclude that with the 4-talker masker, noise reduction scheme processing provides a listening effort benefit in addition to any effect associated with improved intelligibility. Thus, the effect of the noise reduction scheme on listening effort incorporates more than can be explained by intelligibility alone, emphasizing the potential importance of measuring listening effort in addition to traditional speech reception measures.