Cargando…
Luminance effects on pupil dilation in speech-in-noise recognition
There is an increasing interest in the field of audiology and speech communication to measure the effort that it takes to listen in noisy environments, with obvious implications for populations suffering from hearing loss. Pupillometry offers one avenue to make progress in this enterprise but import...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Public Library of Science
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9718387/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36459511 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278506 |
Sumario: | There is an increasing interest in the field of audiology and speech communication to measure the effort that it takes to listen in noisy environments, with obvious implications for populations suffering from hearing loss. Pupillometry offers one avenue to make progress in this enterprise but important methodological questions remain to be addressed before such tools can serve practical applications. Typically, cocktail-party situations may occur in less-than-ideal lighting conditions, e.g. a pub or a restaurant, and it is unclear how robust pupil dynamics are to luminance changes. In this study, we first used a well-known paradigm where sentences were presented at different signal-to-noise ratios (SNR), all conducive of good intelligibility. This enabled us to replicate findings, e.g. a larger and later peak pupil dilation (PPD) at adverse SNR, or when the sentences were misunderstood, and to investigate the dependency of the PPD on sentence duration. A second experiment reiterated two of the SNR levels, 0 and +14 dB, but measured at 0, 75, and 220 lux. The results showed that the impact of luminance on the SNR effect was non-monotonic (sub-optimal in darkness or in bright light), and as such, there is no trivial way to derive pupillary metrics that are robust to differences in background light, posing considerable constraints for applications of pupillometry in daily life. Our findings raise an under-examined but crucial issue when designing and understanding listening effort studies using pupillometry, and offer important insights to future clinical application of pupillometry across sites. |
---|