{"title":"听力努力很难从一个人的声音中检测出来：听力学评估和对话伙伴的含义。","authors":"Matthew B Winn, Katherine H Teece","doi":"10.1044/2025_JSLHR-24-00527","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Listening can be effortful for a variety of reasons, including when a person misperceives a word in a sentence and then mentally repairs it using later context. The current study explored whether an external observer (in the role of a tester/clinician) could detect that effort by hearing the listener's voice as they repeat the sentence.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Stimuli were audio recordings of 13 adults with cochlear implants repeating sentences that were either intact or with a masked word that could be inferred/repaired using context (the latter of which were previously documented to elicit greater effort). Participants (<i>n</i> = 171, including 28 audiologists) used a continuous visual analog scale to judge whether the talker heard one type of stimulus or the other. Participants were also surveyed for experiences related to detecting effort or confusion in a talker's voice.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Participant judges were unable to discern when the CI users were forced to effortfully infer words from context when repeating a sentence. Ratings indicated a general bias toward assuming the listener heard the original sentence correctly without any need for repair. Acoustic properties of the CI users' voices (hypothesized higher voice pitch and delayed verbal reaction time for stimuli involving repair) did not reliably correlate with ratings of uncertainty. There were also no statistically detectable advantages for audiologists or for people who reported experience or skill in discerning uncertainty in a talker's voice.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Despite clear evidence that mental repair incurs extra effort, the process of mental repair gives no reliably perceptible signature in a talker's voice, even for audiologists and others who profess to have experience and skill in conversing with people who have hearing loss. Listening effort is at risk of going unnoticed by conversation partners and by audiologists who might underestimate a patient's effort when listening to speech.</p><p><strong>Supplemental material: </strong>https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.28688012.</p>","PeriodicalId":51254,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research","volume":"68 5","pages":"2536-2547"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Listening Effort Is Difficult to Detect in a Person's Voice: Implications for Audiology Evaluations and Conversation Partners.\",\"authors\":\"Matthew B Winn, Katherine H Teece\",\"doi\":\"10.1044/2025_JSLHR-24-00527\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Listening can be effortful for a variety of reasons, including when a person misperceives a word in a sentence and then mentally repairs it using later context. The current study explored whether an external observer (in the role of a tester/clinician) could detect that effort by hearing the listener's voice as they repeat the sentence.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Stimuli were audio recordings of 13 adults with cochlear implants repeating sentences that were either intact or with a masked word that could be inferred/repaired using context (the latter of which were previously documented to elicit greater effort). Participants (<i>n</i> = 171, including 28 audiologists) used a continuous visual analog scale to judge whether the talker heard one type of stimulus or the other. Participants were also surveyed for experiences related to detecting effort or confusion in a talker's voice.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Participant judges were unable to discern when the CI users were forced to effortfully infer words from context when repeating a sentence. Ratings indicated a general bias toward assuming the listener heard the original sentence correctly without any need for repair. Acoustic properties of the CI users' voices (hypothesized higher voice pitch and delayed verbal reaction time for stimuli involving repair) did not reliably correlate with ratings of uncertainty. There were also no statistically detectable advantages for audiologists or for people who reported experience or skill in discerning uncertainty in a talker's voice.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Despite clear evidence that mental repair incurs extra effort, the process of mental repair gives no reliably perceptible signature in a talker's voice, even for audiologists and others who profess to have experience and skill in conversing with people who have hearing loss. Listening effort is at risk of going unnoticed by conversation partners and by audiologists who might underestimate a patient's effort when listening to speech.</p><p><strong>Supplemental material: </strong>https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.28688012.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51254,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research\",\"volume\":\"68 5\",\"pages\":\"2536-2547\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1044/2025_JSLHR-24-00527\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/4/16 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1044/2025_JSLHR-24-00527","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/4/16 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Listening Effort Is Difficult to Detect in a Person's Voice: Implications for Audiology Evaluations and Conversation Partners.
Purpose: Listening can be effortful for a variety of reasons, including when a person misperceives a word in a sentence and then mentally repairs it using later context. The current study explored whether an external observer (in the role of a tester/clinician) could detect that effort by hearing the listener's voice as they repeat the sentence.
Method: Stimuli were audio recordings of 13 adults with cochlear implants repeating sentences that were either intact or with a masked word that could be inferred/repaired using context (the latter of which were previously documented to elicit greater effort). Participants (n = 171, including 28 audiologists) used a continuous visual analog scale to judge whether the talker heard one type of stimulus or the other. Participants were also surveyed for experiences related to detecting effort or confusion in a talker's voice.
Results: Participant judges were unable to discern when the CI users were forced to effortfully infer words from context when repeating a sentence. Ratings indicated a general bias toward assuming the listener heard the original sentence correctly without any need for repair. Acoustic properties of the CI users' voices (hypothesized higher voice pitch and delayed verbal reaction time for stimuli involving repair) did not reliably correlate with ratings of uncertainty. There were also no statistically detectable advantages for audiologists or for people who reported experience or skill in discerning uncertainty in a talker's voice.
Conclusions: Despite clear evidence that mental repair incurs extra effort, the process of mental repair gives no reliably perceptible signature in a talker's voice, even for audiologists and others who profess to have experience and skill in conversing with people who have hearing loss. Listening effort is at risk of going unnoticed by conversation partners and by audiologists who might underestimate a patient's effort when listening to speech.
期刊介绍：
Mission: JSLHR publishes peer-reviewed research and other scholarly articles on the normal and disordered processes in speech, language, hearing, and related areas such as cognition, oral-motor function, and swallowing. The journal is an international outlet for both basic research on communication processes and clinical research pertaining to screening, diagnosis, and management of communication disorders as well as the etiologies and characteristics of these disorders. JSLHR seeks to advance evidence-based practice by disseminating the results of new studies as well as providing a forum for critical reviews and meta-analyses of previously published work.
Scope: The broad field of communication sciences and disorders, including speech production and perception; anatomy and physiology of speech and voice; genetics, biomechanics, and other basic sciences pertaining to human communication; mastication and swallowing; speech disorders; voice disorders; development of speech, language, or hearing in children; normal language processes; language disorders; disorders of hearing and balance; psychoacoustics; and anatomy and physiology of hearing.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
