By individualizing speech-in-noise level, one can aim to compare physiological responses near a comparable recognition level across listeners with different hearing abilities. We examined whether the aim was realized and whether pupil diameter, skin conductance, and photoplethysmography-derived heartrate provided usable responses during sentence recognition. Thirty-three young adults with normal or near-normal audiograms repeated sentences in multitalker babble at individually calibrated levels. Code audit identified the calibration estimate as a model-based whole-sentence SNR50, rather than the intended SNR75. Actual whole-sentence accuracy averaged 43.6% (ranging from 20% to 70%). Relative to a 500 ms pre-speech reference, mean pupil change was 0.17 mm during encoding–retention (95% CI [0.13, 0.21]; n = 19) and 0.14 mm during verbal response ([0.08, 0.20]; n = 13). Corresponding skin-conductance changes were 0.02 μS ([0.01, 0.04]; n = 30) and 0.07 μS ([0.04, 0.09]; n = 30). Skin conductance was greater during verbal response, an interval also containing speech production, respiration, and movement; this contrast cannot isolate listening-related activity. No cross-modal or physiology–behavior association survived false-discovery-rate correction. The short reference did not support heart-rate change estimation. Individual calibration provided an approximate performance anchor but did not verify equivalent observed performance or effort. The data describe stage-related pupil and conductance reactivity but cannot rank modalities by sensitivity to changing listening demand.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Qi et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: