Copresence Was Found to Be Related to Some Pupil Measures in Persons With Hearing Loss While They Performed a Speech-in-Noise Task

Abstract

Objectives: To assess if a manipulation of copresence was related to speech-in-noise task performance, arousal, and effort of persons with hearing loss. Task-related arousal and effort were measured by means of pupillometry. Design: Twenty-nine participants (mean age: 64.6 years) with hearing loss (4-frequency pure-tone average [4F-PTA] of 50.2 dB HL [SD = 8.9 dB] in the right ear and 51.3 dB HL [SD = 8.7 dB] in the left ear; averaged across 0.5, 1, 2, and 4 kHz) listened to and repeated spoken Danish sentences that were masked by four streams of continuous speech. Participants were presented with blocks of 20 sentences, during which copresence was manipulated by having participants do the task either alone or accompanied by two observers who were recruited from a similar age group. The task was presented at two difficulty levels, which was accomplished by fixing the signal-to-noise ratio of the speech and masker to match the thresholds at which participants were estimated to correctly repeat 50% (difficult) or 80% (easy) of the sentences in a block. Performance was assessed based on whether or not sentences were repeated correctly. Measures of pupil size (baseline pupil size [BPS], peak pupil dilation [PPD], and mean pupil dilation [MPD]) were used to index arousal and effort. Participants also completed ratings of subjective effort and stress after each block of sentences and a self-efficacy for listening-questionnaire. Results: Task performance was not associated with copresence, but was found to be related to 4F-PTA. An increase in BPS was found for copresence conditions, compared to alone conditions. Furthermore, a post-hoc exploratory analysis revealed that the copresence conditions were associated with a significantly larger pupil size in the second half of the task-evoked pupil response (TEPR). No change in PPD or MPD did was detected between copresence and alone conditions. Self-efficacy, 4F-PTA, and age were not found to be related to the pupil data. Subjective ratings were sensitive to task difficulty but not copresence. Conclusion: Copresence was not found to be related to speech-in-noise performance, PPD, or MPD in persons with HL but was associated with an increase in arousal (as indicated by a larger BPS). This could be related to premobilization of effort and/or discomfort in response to the observers’ presence. Furthermore, an exploratory analysis of the pupil data showed that copresence was associated with greater pupil dilations in the second half of the TEPR. This may indicate that participants invested more effort during the speech-in-noise task while in the presence of the observers, but that this increase in effort may not necessarily have been related to listening itself. Instead, other speech-in-noise task-related processes, such as preparing to respond, could have been influenced by copresence.