Cargando…

Systematic Comparison of Trial Exclusion Criteria for Pupillometry Data Analysis in Individuals With Single-Sided Deafness and Normal Hearing

The measurement of pupil dilation has become a common way to assess listening effort. Pupillometry data are subject to artifacts, requiring highly contaminated data to be discarded from analysis. It is unknown how trial exclusion criteria impact experimental results. The present study examined the e...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Burg, Emily A., Thakkar, Tanvi, Fields, Taylor, Misurelli, Sara M., Kuchinsky, Stefanie E., Roche, Joseph, Lee, Daniel J., Litovsky, Ruth Y.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: SAGE Publications 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8150669/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34024219
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/23312165211013256
_version_ 1783698202931757056
author Burg, Emily A.
Thakkar, Tanvi
Fields, Taylor
Misurelli, Sara M.
Kuchinsky, Stefanie E.
Roche, Joseph
Lee, Daniel J.
Litovsky, Ruth Y.
author_facet Burg, Emily A.
Thakkar, Tanvi
Fields, Taylor
Misurelli, Sara M.
Kuchinsky, Stefanie E.
Roche, Joseph
Lee, Daniel J.
Litovsky, Ruth Y.
author_sort Burg, Emily A.
collection PubMed
description The measurement of pupil dilation has become a common way to assess listening effort. Pupillometry data are subject to artifacts, requiring highly contaminated data to be discarded from analysis. It is unknown how trial exclusion criteria impact experimental results. The present study examined the effect of a common exclusion criterion, percentage of blinks, on speech intelligibility and pupil dilation measures in 9 participants with single-sided deafness (SSD) and 20 participants with normal hearing. Participants listened to and repeated sentences in quiet or with speech maskers. Pupillometry trials were processed using three levels of blink exclusion criteria: 15%, 30%, and 45%. These percentages reflect a threshold for missing data points in a trial, where trials that exceed the threshold are excluded from analysis. Results indicated that pupil dilation was significantly greater and intelligibility was significantly lower in the masker compared with the quiet condition for both groups. Across-group comparisons revealed that speech intelligibility in the SSD group decreased significantly more than the normal hearing group from quiet to masker conditions, but the change in pupil dilation was similar for both groups. There was no effect of blink criteria on speech intelligibility or pupil dilation results for either group. However, the total percentage of blinks in the masker condition was significantly greater than in the quiet condition for the SSD group, which is consistent with previous studies that have found a relationship between blinking and task difficulty. This association should be carefully considered in future experiments using pupillometry to gauge listening effort.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8150669
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher SAGE Publications
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-81506692021-06-07 Systematic Comparison of Trial Exclusion Criteria for Pupillometry Data Analysis in Individuals With Single-Sided Deafness and Normal Hearing Burg, Emily A. Thakkar, Tanvi Fields, Taylor Misurelli, Sara M. Kuchinsky, Stefanie E. Roche, Joseph Lee, Daniel J. Litovsky, Ruth Y. Trends Hear Original Article The measurement of pupil dilation has become a common way to assess listening effort. Pupillometry data are subject to artifacts, requiring highly contaminated data to be discarded from analysis. It is unknown how trial exclusion criteria impact experimental results. The present study examined the effect of a common exclusion criterion, percentage of blinks, on speech intelligibility and pupil dilation measures in 9 participants with single-sided deafness (SSD) and 20 participants with normal hearing. Participants listened to and repeated sentences in quiet or with speech maskers. Pupillometry trials were processed using three levels of blink exclusion criteria: 15%, 30%, and 45%. These percentages reflect a threshold for missing data points in a trial, where trials that exceed the threshold are excluded from analysis. Results indicated that pupil dilation was significantly greater and intelligibility was significantly lower in the masker compared with the quiet condition for both groups. Across-group comparisons revealed that speech intelligibility in the SSD group decreased significantly more than the normal hearing group from quiet to masker conditions, but the change in pupil dilation was similar for both groups. There was no effect of blink criteria on speech intelligibility or pupil dilation results for either group. However, the total percentage of blinks in the masker condition was significantly greater than in the quiet condition for the SSD group, which is consistent with previous studies that have found a relationship between blinking and task difficulty. This association should be carefully considered in future experiments using pupillometry to gauge listening effort. SAGE Publications 2021-05-24 /pmc/articles/PMC8150669/ /pubmed/34024219 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/23312165211013256 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/Creative Commons Non Commercial CC BY-NC: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
spellingShingle Original Article
Burg, Emily A.
Thakkar, Tanvi
Fields, Taylor
Misurelli, Sara M.
Kuchinsky, Stefanie E.
Roche, Joseph
Lee, Daniel J.
Litovsky, Ruth Y.
Systematic Comparison of Trial Exclusion Criteria for Pupillometry Data Analysis in Individuals With Single-Sided Deafness and Normal Hearing
title Systematic Comparison of Trial Exclusion Criteria for Pupillometry Data Analysis in Individuals With Single-Sided Deafness and Normal Hearing
title_full Systematic Comparison of Trial Exclusion Criteria for Pupillometry Data Analysis in Individuals With Single-Sided Deafness and Normal Hearing
title_fullStr Systematic Comparison of Trial Exclusion Criteria for Pupillometry Data Analysis in Individuals With Single-Sided Deafness and Normal Hearing
title_full_unstemmed Systematic Comparison of Trial Exclusion Criteria for Pupillometry Data Analysis in Individuals With Single-Sided Deafness and Normal Hearing
title_short Systematic Comparison of Trial Exclusion Criteria for Pupillometry Data Analysis in Individuals With Single-Sided Deafness and Normal Hearing
title_sort systematic comparison of trial exclusion criteria for pupillometry data analysis in individuals with single-sided deafness and normal hearing
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8150669/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34024219
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/23312165211013256
work_keys_str_mv AT burgemilya systematiccomparisonoftrialexclusioncriteriaforpupillometrydataanalysisinindividualswithsinglesideddeafnessandnormalhearing
AT thakkartanvi systematiccomparisonoftrialexclusioncriteriaforpupillometrydataanalysisinindividualswithsinglesideddeafnessandnormalhearing
AT fieldstaylor systematiccomparisonoftrialexclusioncriteriaforpupillometrydataanalysisinindividualswithsinglesideddeafnessandnormalhearing
AT misurellisaram systematiccomparisonoftrialexclusioncriteriaforpupillometrydataanalysisinindividualswithsinglesideddeafnessandnormalhearing
AT kuchinskystefaniee systematiccomparisonoftrialexclusioncriteriaforpupillometrydataanalysisinindividualswithsinglesideddeafnessandnormalhearing
AT rochejoseph systematiccomparisonoftrialexclusioncriteriaforpupillometrydataanalysisinindividualswithsinglesideddeafnessandnormalhearing
AT leedanielj systematiccomparisonoftrialexclusioncriteriaforpupillometrydataanalysisinindividualswithsinglesideddeafnessandnormalhearing
AT litovskyruthy systematiccomparisonoftrialexclusioncriteriaforpupillometrydataanalysisinindividualswithsinglesideddeafnessandnormalhearing