Acoustic- Versus Intelligibility-Based Assessment of Subjective Listening Difficulty Measured With the Repeat-Recall Test

Abstract

Objectives: To contrast interpretations of listening effort ratings when judged against acoustic- versus intelligibility-based normative references. Design: Existing data collected from 66 normal-hearing adult listeners, comprising 2730 trials of the Repeat-Recall Test, were used to establish norms of subjective listening effort ratings for six ranges of intelligibility. Data from 21 aided hearing-impaired listeners were then used to contrast intelligibility-based norms against acoustic-based norms when interpreting listening effort ratings measured in omnidirectional and directional microphone conditions. Results: Whereas acoustic-based norms effectively demonstrated reduced effort for directional versus omnidirectional microphone modes, intelligibility-based references controlled for listeners’ performance biases and improved the consistency with which subjective ratings were ranked across the two microphone conditions. Conclusions: The choice of normative reference should be carefully considered when judging listening effort ratings from hearing-impaired individuals against those of their normal-hearing peers. Whereas acoustic-based references may be more useful for evaluating the benefits of hearing aid technology, intelligibility-based references may be better suited to identifying listeners with poor subjective experiences for speech-in-noise related to factors beyond intelligibility.