i LISTENING EFFORT ALLOCATION, STIMULUS-DRIVEN, GOAL-DRIVEN, OR BOTH? by Min ...

218 Pages·2017·1.52 MB·English

LISTENING EFFORT ALLOCATION, STIMULUS-DRIVEN, GOAL-DRIVEN, OR
BOTH?

by
Min Zhang
Bachelor of Clinical Medicine, Tongji Medical School of Huazhong University of Science and
Technology, 2002

Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of
The School of Health and Rehabilitation Science
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy

University of Pittsburgh
i
2017
UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH
SCHOOL OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATION SCIENCE

This dissertation was presented

by

Min Zhang

It was defended on
July 6, 2017
and approved by
Michael Dickey, PhD, Associate Professor, Department of Communication Science and
Disorders
Malcolm Mcneil, PhD, Distinguished Professor, Department of Communication Science and
Disorders
Sheila Pratt, PhD, Professor, Department of Communication Science and Disorders
Charles Perfetti, PhD, Distinguished Professor, Department of Psychology
Greg J. Siegle, PhD, Associate Professor, Departments of Psychiatry
Dissertation Advisor: Catherine Palmer, PhD, Associate Professor, Department of
Communication Science and Disorders

ii
Copyright © by Min Zhang
2017
iii
LISTENING EFFORT ALLOCATION, STIMULUS-DRIVEN, GOAL-DRIVEN, OR
BOTH?

Min Zhang, PhD
University of Pittsburgh, 2017

The research in audiology to date about how people listen has been focused narrowly on the
impact of the task demand (e.g., speech complexity) on the effort exerted for listening. Very few
studies have examined how intention-associated factors affect listening effort regulation, and
little is known about how to characterize the individual quality of effort expenditure in terms of
efficiency. This study tested a compensatory control model for effort regulation to investigate
how reward would modulate the effect of task demand on listening effort. The secondary aim
was to propose a modified computational approach for effort efficiency calculation.
The nonclinical sample was comprised of 40 college volunteer participants with normal
hearing. All participants completed the Need for Cognition scale, a speech comprehension task
which required cost-benefit decision making, and a self-report strategy use survey. Pupil dilation
was measured throughout the speech comprehension task as an indicator of listening effort.
Results supported the model in which effort regulation during an intended activity is determined
not only by stimulus-driven factors such as task demand, but also by goal-driven factors such as
reward. Significant interaction effects emerged. Furthermore, the effort efficiency derived by
using goal-oriented performance variables demonstrated superiority in distinguishing individuals
compared to the use of a simple performance accuracy equation.
This study contributes to the limited literature on proactive listening effort regulation.
Examining further how hearing, cognition, and personality interact neurophysiologically and
functionally in individuals with normal hearing and hearing loss can help clinicians and
iv
researchers better understand the underlying mechanism of listening effort control, and facilitate
implementing strategies to aid effective listening through audiologic interventions.
v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to express my deepest appreciation and gratitude to my advisor,
Dr.Catherine Palmer. Her advice and mentorship profoundly shaped my academic personality.
She has made my time as a Ph.D. student extraordinarily enjoyable and intellectually stimulating.
I am deeply grateful for this priceless gift. I want to thank all my committee members
Dr.Catherine Palmer, Dr. Sheila Pratt, Dr. Michael Walsh Dickey, Dr. Malcolm McNeil, Dr.
Charles Perfetti, and Dr. Greg Siegle for all their selfless help, support and confidence in me. I
am fortunate that these distinguished scholars were willing to work with me on this exciting
interdisciplinary endeavor. I benefited tremendously from their substantive expertise and from
their guidance as I started my professional career. Especially, I want to thank Dr. Sheila Pratt for
providing me the opportunity of working in her fabulous lab all these years which has helped me
establish good manners of conducting serious research. I thank Dr. Michael Dickey for
generously lending the eyetracking equipment to me so that my dissertation was able to advance
without being held back by any technology issue. I thank Dr. Malcolm McNeil for always
encouraging me and making me think critically. I thank Dr. Charles Perfetti for being available
for me whenever I need his advice on my dissertation project. I thank Dr. Greg Siegle for
opening my eyes to new knowledge and his patient guidance on my data analysis.
vi
I also want to thank the many other faculty members (especially Dr. Elaine Mormer) and
my fellow doctoral students (especially Reem Muller) at Pitt who have enriched me with
countless hours of constructive discussions, with their honest critical feedback, and by serving as
role models and examples. I hope I will become a worthy member of this wonderful academic
community.
I dedicate this dissertation to my family, especially my mother Weilan Wu and my sister
Li Zhang, whose continued support has allowed me to pursue this goal and encouraged me in
difficult times. They came all the way from China to Pittsburgh to rescue on many occasions
since I had my daughter. I also want to dedicate this dissertation to my husband Jiangpeng Xu,
who has trained me to become stronger and more efficient over the years. I would like to give
special thanks to my brilliant daughter, Hailing, for continually providing the requisite breaks
from philosophy and the motivation to finish my degree with expediency. I also would like to
thank my personal friends both from China and the U.S. for their continued mental support and
encouragement.
I wouldn’t have gone this far without such amazing teams behind me, so, the greatest
gratitude and appreciation to all of you.
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 1
1.1 DEFINITION OF LISTENING EFFORT ........................................................ 2
1.2 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ..................................................................... 9
1.2.1 Neurophysiological basis of listening effort .............................................. 10
1.2.2 Theories and models related to effort ....................................................... 23
1.2.2.1 Unitary-resource model of Kahneman (1973) .................................. 23
1.2.2.2 Ease of Language Understanding (ELU) model .............................. 31
1.2.2.3 Compensatory control model ............................................................. 41
1.2.2.4 Speech comprehension and effort ...................................................... 49
1.2.3 Individual difference and listening effort ................................................. 58
1.2.3.1 Auditory ability ................................................................................... 59
1.2.3.2 Cognitive ability .................................................................................. 62
1.2.3.3 Personality ........................................................................................... 66
1.2.4 Summary ...................................................................................................... 74
1.3 LISTENING EFFORT MEASUREMENT ..................................................... 75
1.3.1 Physiological measurement ........................................................................ 76
1.3.1.1 Pupil dilation ....................................................................................... 76
1.3.1.2 Skin conductance, temperature, Heart rate, Cortisol level, EMG . 81
viii
1.3.1.3 Event-related Potentials (ERPs) ........................................................ 87
1.3.1.4 Brain imaging technique .................................................................... 89
1.3.2 Task- and performance-based behavioral measurement ........................ 94
1.3.2.1 Single-task paradigm .......................................................................... 94
1.3.2.2 Dual-task paradigm ............................................................................ 97
1.3.3 Subjective rating ....................................................................................... 101
1.3.4 Summary .................................................................................................... 104
1.4 RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND HYPOTHESES ....................................... 106
2.0 METHOD ................................................................................................................. 108
2.1 EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN .......................................................................... 108
2.2 PARTICIPANTS ............................................................................................. 110
2.3 STIMULI .......................................................................................................... 111
2.4 PROCEDURE .................................................................................................. 123
2.4.1 Screening and descriptive tests ................................................................ 123
2.4.2 Main experiment ....................................................................................... 124
2.4.3 Pupillometry .............................................................................................. 130
2.4.4 Data selection, cleaning, and reduction................................................... 132
2.4.4.1 Pupillary data .................................................................................... 132
2.4.4.2 Behavioral data ................................................................................. 137
3.0 RESULTS ................................................................................................................. 139
3.1 PRIMARY RESEARCH QUESTION ........................................................... 139
3.1.1 Guthrie and Buchwald’s (1991) approach .............................................. 139
3.1.2 Two-way within-subject ANOVA ............................................................ 143
ix
3.2 SECONDARY RESEARCH QUESTION ..................................................... 145
3.3 DESCRIPTIVE DATA .................................................................................... 150
3.3.1 Performance and response time .............................................................. 150
3.3.2 Self-report strategy use............................................................................. 153
4.0 DISCUSSION ........................................................................................................... 156
4.1 GENERAL DISCUSSION .............................................................................. 156
4.2 RESEARCH AND PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS ................................... 166
4.2.1 Research implications ............................................................................... 166
4.2.2 Practical implications ............................................................................... 167
4.2.3 Limitations and directions for future research ...................................... 169
4.3 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................ 172
APPENDIX A ............................................................................................................................ 174
APPENDIX B ............................................................................................................................ 176
x