Los puntos clave no están disponibles para este artículo en este momento.
Purpose Understanding speech in complex realistic acoustic environments requires effort. In everyday listening situations, speech quality is often degraded due to adverse acoustics, such as excessive background noise level (BNL) and reverberation time (RT), or talker characteristics such as foreign accent ( Mattys, Davis, Bradlow, the other 59 listeners, with speech from native Mandarin Chinese talkers. Based on their 1st language learned during childhood, 3 groups of listeners were recruited: listeners who were native English speakers, native Mandarin Chinese speakers, and native speakers of other languages (e.g., Hindu, Korean, and Portuguese). Results Listening effort was measured objectively through the APR task performance and subjectively using the NASA TLX questionnaire. Performance on the APR task did not vary with changing acoustic conditions, but it did suggest increased listening effort for native listeners of other languages compared to the 2 other listener groups. From the NASA TLX, listeners reported feeling more frustrated and less successful in understanding Chinese-accented speech. Nonnative listeners reported more listening effort (i.e., physical demand, temporal demand, and effort) than native listeners in speech comprehension under adverse acoustics. When listeners' English proficiency was controlled, higher BNL was strongly related to a decrease in perceived performance, whereas such relationship with RT was much weaker. Nonnative listeners who shared the foreign talkers' accent reported no change in listening effort, whereas other listeners reported more difficulty in understanding the accented speech. Conclusions Adverse acoustics required more effortful listening as measured subjectively with a self-report NASA TLX. This subjective scale was more sensitive than a dual task that involved speech comprehension, which was beyond sentence recall. It was better at capturing the negative impacts on listening effort from acoustic factors (i.e., both BNL and RT), talker accent, and listener language abilities.
Peng et al. (Thu,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: