Effect of Auditory Distractors on Speech Recognition and Listening Effort

Abstract

Objectives: Everyday listening environments are filled with competing noise and distractors. Although significant research has examined the effect of competing noise on speech recognition and listening effort, little is understood about the effect of distraction. The framework for understanding effortful listening recognizes the importance of attention-related processes in speech recognition and listening effort; however, it underspecifies the role that they play, particularly with respect to distraction. The load theory of attention predicts that resources will be automatically allocated to processing a distractor, but only if perceptual load in the listening task is low enough. If perceptual load is high (i.e., listening in noise), then resources that would otherwise be allocated to processing a distractor are used to overcome the increased perceptual load and are unavailable for distractor processing. Although there is ample evidence for this theory in the visual domain, there has been little research investigating how the load theory of attention may apply to speech processing. In this study, we sought to measure the effect of distractors on speech recognition and listening effort and to evaluate whether the load theory of attention can be used to understand a listener’s resource allocation in the presence of distractors. Design: Fifteen adult listeners participated in a monosyllabic words repetition task. Test stimuli were presented in quiet or in competing speech (+5 dB signal-to-noise ratio) and in distractor or no distractor conditions. In conditions with distractors, auditory distractors were presented before the target words on 24% of the trials in quiet and in noise. Percent-correct was recorded as speech recognition, and verbal response time (VRT) was recorded as a measure of listening effort. Results: A significant interaction was present for speech recognition, showing reduced speech recognition when distractors were presented in the quiet condition but no effect of distractors when noise was present. VRTs were significantly longer when distractors were present, regardless of listening condition. Conclusions: Consistent with the load theory of attention, distractors significantly reduced speech recognition in the low-perceptual load condition (i.e., listening in quiet) but did not impact speech recognition scores in conditions of high perceptual load (i.e., listening in noise). The increases in VRTs in the presence of distractors in both low- and high-perceptual load conditions (i.e., quiet and noise) suggest that the load theory of attention may not apply to listening effort. However, the large effect of distractors on VRT in both conditions is consistent with the previous work demonstrating that distraction-related shifts of attention can delay processing of the target task. These findings also fit within the framework for understanding effortful listening, which proposes that involuntary attentional shifts result in a depletion of cognitive resources, leaving less resources readily available to process the signal of interest; resulting in increased listening effort (i.e., elongated VRT).