The Impact of Instructions on Individual Prioritization Strategies in a Dual-Task Paradigm for Listening Effort

Katrien Kestens, Emma Lepla, Flore Vandoorne, Dorien Ceuleers, Louise Van Goylen, Hannah Keppler
{"title":"The Impact of Instructions on Individual Prioritization Strategies in a Dual-Task Paradigm for Listening Effort","authors":"Katrien Kestens, Emma Lepla, Flore Vandoorne, Dorien Ceuleers, Louise Van Goylen, Hannah Keppler","doi":"10.1101/2024.06.26.24309528","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<strong>Introduction</strong> Understanding how listeners execute a dual-task paradigm for listening effort would provide a benchmark for future studies and clinical implementations. Therefore, this study aimed to examine the impact of instructions on the prioritization strategy employed by individuals during a dual-task paradigm for listening effort by assessing dual-task interference. <strong>Methods</strong> The dual-task paradigm consisted of a primary speech understanding task in different listening conditions and a secondary visual memory task, both performed separately (baseline) and simultaneously (dual-task). Twenty-three normal-hearing participants (mean age: 36.8 years; 14 females) were directed to prioritize the primary speech understanding task in the dual-task condition, whereas another twenty-three (matched for age, gender, and education level) received no specific instructions regarding task priority. Both groups performed the dual-task paradigm twice (mean interval: 14.8 days). Dual-task interference was assessed by plotting the dual-task effect of the primary and secondary task against each other. Participants were classified based on their patterns of interference. <strong>Results</strong> The prioritizing group had more participants who achieved stable or better scores on the primary task in the dual-task condition compared to baseline. However, there was considerable variability in the prioritizing strategy employed at the individual level across listening conditions and test moments, regardless the given prioritization instructions. <strong>Conclusion</strong> Providing prioritization instructions was insufficient to ensure that an individual will mainly focus on the primary task and will stick to this strategy across listening conditions and test moments. These results raised certain reservations about the current usage of dual-task paradigms for listening effort.","PeriodicalId":501185,"journal":{"name":"medRxiv - Otolaryngology","volume":"59 13 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"medRxiv - Otolaryngology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.06.26.24309528","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction Understanding how listeners execute a dual-task paradigm for listening effort would provide a benchmark for future studies and clinical implementations. Therefore, this study aimed to examine the impact of instructions on the prioritization strategy employed by individuals during a dual-task paradigm for listening effort by assessing dual-task interference. Methods The dual-task paradigm consisted of a primary speech understanding task in different listening conditions and a secondary visual memory task, both performed separately (baseline) and simultaneously (dual-task). Twenty-three normal-hearing participants (mean age: 36.8 years; 14 females) were directed to prioritize the primary speech understanding task in the dual-task condition, whereas another twenty-three (matched for age, gender, and education level) received no specific instructions regarding task priority. Both groups performed the dual-task paradigm twice (mean interval: 14.8 days). Dual-task interference was assessed by plotting the dual-task effect of the primary and secondary task against each other. Participants were classified based on their patterns of interference. Results The prioritizing group had more participants who achieved stable or better scores on the primary task in the dual-task condition compared to baseline. However, there was considerable variability in the prioritizing strategy employed at the individual level across listening conditions and test moments, regardless the given prioritization instructions. Conclusion Providing prioritization instructions was insufficient to ensure that an individual will mainly focus on the primary task and will stick to this strategy across listening conditions and test moments. These results raised certain reservations about the current usage of dual-task paradigms for listening effort.
在双任务范式中,指令对个人倾听努力优先级策略的影响
引言 了解听者如何执行听力双任务范式将为今后的研究和临床实施提供基准。因此,本研究旨在通过评估双任务干扰,研究指令对个体在听力双任务范式中所采用的优先策略的影响。方法 双任务范式包括在不同听力条件下的主要语音理解任务和次要视觉记忆任务,两者分别(基线)和同时(双任务)进行。23 名听力正常的参与者(平均年龄:36.8 岁;14 名女性)被要求在双任务条件下优先完成主要的言语理解任务,而另外 23 名参与者(年龄、性别和受教育程度相匹配)则没有收到关于任务优先级的具体指示。两组人都进行了两次双任务范式(平均间隔时间:14.8 天)。通过绘制主要任务和次要任务的双任务效果图来评估双任务干扰。根据干扰模式对参与者进行分类。结果 与基线相比,优先组有更多的参与者在双任务条件下的主要任务中取得了稳定或更好的成绩。然而,在不同的听力条件和测试时刻,无论给出的优先顺序指示如何,个人采用的优先顺序策略都存在相当大的差异。结论 提供优先顺序指示不足以确保个体将主要精力集中在主要任务上,并在不同的听力条件和测试时刻坚持这一策略。这些结果使人们对目前使用双任务范式进行听力努力持保留态度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信