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":"10.1016/j.jcomdis.2025.106571","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><div>This study examined the impact of instructions on the prioritization strategy employed by individuals during a listening effort dual-task paradigm.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>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). Patterns of dual-task interference were assessed by plotting the dual-task effect of the primary and secondary task against each other. Fisher’s exact tests were used to assess whether there was an association between interference patterns and group (non-prioritizing and prioritizing) across all listening conditions and test sessions.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>No statistically significant association was found between the pattern of dual-task interference and the group to which the participants belong for any of the listening conditions and test sessions. Descriptive analysis revealed no consistent strategy use within individuals across listening conditions and test sessions, suggesting a lack of a uniform approach regardless of the given instructions.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Providing prioritization instructions was insufficient to ensure that an individual will mainly focus on the primary task and consistently adhere to this strategy across listening conditions and test sessions. These results raised reservations about the current usage of dual-task paradigms for listening effort.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":49175,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Communication Disorders","volume":"118 ","pages":"Article 106571"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Communication Disorders","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0021992425000784","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction
This study examined the impact of instructions on the prioritization strategy employed by individuals during a listening effort dual-task paradigm.
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). Patterns of dual-task interference were assessed by plotting the dual-task effect of the primary and secondary task against each other. Fisher’s exact tests were used to assess whether there was an association between interference patterns and group (non-prioritizing and prioritizing) across all listening conditions and test sessions.
Results
No statistically significant association was found between the pattern of dual-task interference and the group to which the participants belong for any of the listening conditions and test sessions. Descriptive analysis revealed no consistent strategy use within individuals across listening conditions and test sessions, suggesting a lack of a uniform approach regardless of the given instructions.
Conclusion
Providing prioritization instructions was insufficient to ensure that an individual will mainly focus on the primary task and consistently adhere to this strategy across listening conditions and test sessions. These results raised reservations about the current usage of dual-task paradigms for listening effort.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Communication Disorders publishes original articles on topics related to disorders of speech, language and hearing. Authors are encouraged to submit reports of experimental or descriptive investigations (research articles), review articles, tutorials or discussion papers, or letters to the editor ("short communications"). Please note that we do not accept case studies unless they conform to the principles of single-subject experimental design. Special issues are published periodically on timely and clinically relevant topics.