Subjective Evaluation of Communicative Effort for Younger and Older Adults in Interactive Tasks with Energetic and Informational Masking

Abstract

The impact of energetic (EM) and informational masking (IM) on speech communication is typically evaluated using perception tests that do not involve actual communication. Here, ratings of effort, concentration and degree of interference were obtained for 51 young, middle-aged and older adults after they had completed communicative tasks (Diapix) with another participant in conditions in which no noise, speech-shaped noise, or three voices were heard in the background. They also completed background sensory and cognitive tests and a quality of hearing questionnaire. The EM condition was perceived as less effortful, requiring less concentration and easier to ignore than those involving IM. Effects were generally greater for talkers taking the lead in the interaction. Even though the two older groups were more affected by IM than young adults in a speech in noise perception test, age did not impact on ratings of effort and ability to ignore the noise in the diapix communicative task. Only for concentration ratings, did the Older Adult group give similar ratings in quiet as when EM was present. Together, these results suggest that evaluations that purely assess receptive speech in older adults do not fully represent the impact of sources of interference on speech communication.

Speech modifications in interactive speech: effects of age, sex and noise type

“…For example, in the current study, the lack of evidence for vocal effort in some of the groups does not necessarily mean effortless communication, as the other groups may have invested in increasing listening effort instead. Partial evidence for this comes from the ratings obtained from adults over the lifespan (18-80 years) that showed that, generally, the presence of energetic/modulation maskers was perceived as less effortful, requiring less concentration and easier to ignore than the informational masking condition by all groups of adult participants ( [37]).…”

“…Moreover, operationalising effortful speaking and effortful listening according to the dichotomy of perceived and expressed effort is not straightforward. While subjective effort ratings have been successfully used in speech-in-noise perception experiments ( [38]) and in spoken conversations between conversational dyads ( [10,37]), individuals can differ greatly how they conceptualise "effort", especially when comparing children and adults. A more promising avenue for quantifying the cognitive demands associated with listening and speaking effort in laboratory settings might arise from dual-tasking paradigms where both the cognitive load of the secondary task and the consequent physiological manifestations of speaking and listening effort and its consequences for task success can be better operationalised.…”

The Effects of Hearing-Aid Amplification and Noise on Conversational Dynamics Between Normal-Hearing and Hearing-Impaired Talkers

“…Miscommunications, or signs thereof, cause changes in the conversational dynamics for both the HI talker and their interlocutor. It has been observed that when communicating with a HI person, their NH interlocutor adapts the level and spectral content of their speech in face-to-face conversation (Beechey, Buchholz, & Keidser, 2020b;Hazan et al, 2019). This effect has also been identified when interlocutors were not seated face-to-face, i.e.…”

Investigating conversational dynamics in triads: Effects of noise, hearing impairment, and hearing aids

“…From the studies referred to above, results showed that the added communication difficulty experienced by HI interlocutors affected not only the dynamics of their own speech but also of their NH conversational partner (Hazan and Tuomaine, 2019;Beechey et al, 2020b;Sørensen, 2021;. However, in the above studies, conversations were initiated using communication tasks (Diapix or puzzle), which required active participation and interactive exchange of information between two interlocutors (Baker and Hazan, 2011;Beechey et al, 2018).…”

“…For example, it has been known for more than 100 years that humans adapt their speech when communicating in noise (Lombard speech) by increasing the intensity, pitch, and duration of words (Lombard, 1911;Junqua, 1996). Similarly, it has been observed that when communicating with an elder hearing impaired (HI) interlocutor, younger normal-hearing (NH) interlocutors speak louder in quiet and noisy situations, reduce their articulation rate, and alter the spectral content of their speech (Hazan and Tuomaine, 2019;Sørensen et al, 2019;Beechey et al, 2020b;. These changes suggest that the NH interlocutors adapt their speech to alleviate the communication difficulty experienced by their HI communication partner.…”