Objectives: Listening effort can be defined as the cognitive resources required to perform a listening task. The literature on listening effort is as confusing as it is voluminous: measures of listening effort rarely correlate with each other and sometimes result in contradictory findings. Here, we directly compared simultaneously recorded multimodal measures of listening effort. After establishing the reliability of the measures, we investigated validity by quantifying correlations between measures and then grouping-related measures through factor analysis. Design: One hundred and sixteen participants with audiometric thresholds ranging from normal to severe hearing loss took part in the study (age range: 55 to 85 years old, 50.3% male). We simultaneously measured pupil size, electroencephalographic alpha power, skin conductance, and self-report listening effort. One self-report measure of fatigue was also included. The signal to noise ratio (SNR) was adjusted at 71% criterion performance using sequences of 3 digits. The main listening task involved correct recall of a random digit from a sequence of six presented at a SNR where performance was around 82 to 93%. Test–retest reliability of the measures was established by retesting 30 participants 7 days after the initial session. Results: With the exception of skin conductance and the self-report measure of fatigue, interclass correlation coefficients (ICC) revealed good test–retest reliability (minimum ICC: 0.71). Weak or nonsignificant correlations were identified between measures. Factor analysis, using only the reliable measures, revealed four underlying dimensions: factor 1 included SNR, hearing level, baseline alpha power, and performance accuracy; factor 2 included pupillometry; factor 3 included alpha power (during speech presentation and during retention); factor 4 included self-reported listening effort and baseline alpha power. Conclusions: The good ICC suggests that poor test reliability is not the reason for the lack of correlation between measures. We have demonstrated that measures traditionally used as indicators of listening effort tap into multiple underlying dimensions. We therefore propose that there is no “gold standard” measure of listening effort and that different measures of listening effort should not be used interchangeably. When choosing method(s) to measure listening effort, the nature of the task and aspects of increased listening demands that are of interest should be taken into account. The findings of this study provide a framework for understanding and interpreting listening effort measures.

In rodents, noise exposure can destroy synapses between inner hair cells and auditory nerve fibers (“cochlear synaptopathy”) without causing hair cell loss. Noise-induced cochlear synaptopathy usually leaves cochlear thresholds unaltered, but is associated with long-term reductions in auditory brainstem response (ABR) amplitudes at medium-to-high sound levels. This pathophysiology has been suggested to degrade speech perception in noise (SPiN), perhaps explaining why SPiN ability varies so widely among audiometrically normal humans. The present study is the first to test for evidence of cochlear synaptopathy in humans with significant SPiN impairment. Individuals were recruited on the basis of self-reported SPiN difficulties and normal pure tone audiometric thresholds. Performance on a listening task identified a subset with “verified” SPiN impairment. This group was matched with controls on the basis of age, sex, and audiometric thresholds up to 14 kHz. ABRs and envelope-following responses (EFRs) were recorded at high stimulus levels, yielding both raw amplitude measures and within-subject difference measures. Past exposure to high sound levels was assessed by detailed structured interview. Impaired SPiN was not associated with greater lifetime noise exposure, nor with any electrophysiological measure. It is conceivable that retrospective self-report cannot reliably capture noise exposure, and that ABRs and EFRs offer limited sensitivity to synaptopathy in humans. Nevertheless, the results do not support the notion that noise-induced synaptopathy is a significant etiology of SPiN impairment with normal audiometric thresholds. It may be that synaptopathy alone does not have significant perceptual consequences, or is not widespread in humans with normal audiograms.

Although there is strong histological evidence for age-related synaptopathy in humans, evidence for the existence of noise-induced cochlear synaptopathy in humans is inconclusive. Here, we sought to evaluate the relative contributions of age and noise exposure to cochlear synaptopathy using a series of electrophysiological and behavioral measures. We extended an existing cohort by including 33 adults in the age range 37 to 60, resulting in a total of 156 participants, with the additional older participants resulting in a weakening of the correlation between lifetime noise exposure and age. We used six independent regression models (corrected for multiple comparisons), in which age, lifetime noise exposure, and high-frequency audiometric thresholds were used to predict measures of synaptopathy, with a focus on differential measures. The models for auditory brainstem responses, envelope-following responses, interaural phase discrimination, and the co-ordinate response measure of speech perception were not statistically significant. However, both age and noise exposure were significant predictors of performance on the digit triplet test of speech perception in noise, with greater noise exposure (unexpectedly) predicting better performance in the 80 dB sound pressure level (SPL) condition and greater age predicting better performance in the 40 dB SPL condition. Amplitude modulation detection thresholds were also significantly predicted by age, with older listeners performing better than younger listeners at 80 dB SPL. Overall, the results are inconsistent with the predicted effects of synaptopathy.