» Articles » PMID: 29801981

Eyes and Ears: Using Eye Tracking and Pupillometry to Understand Challenges to Speech Recognition

Overview
Journal Hear Res
Date 2018 May 27
PMID 29801981
Citations 10
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Although human speech recognition is often experienced as relatively effortless, a number of common challenges can render the task more difficult. Such challenges may originate in talkers (e.g., unfamiliar accents, varying speech styles), the environment (e.g. noise), or in listeners themselves (e.g., hearing loss, aging, different native language backgrounds). Each of these challenges can reduce the intelligibility of spoken language, but even when intelligibility remains high, they can place greater processing demands on listeners. Noisy conditions, for example, can lead to poorer recall for speech, even when it has been correctly understood. Speech intelligibility measures, memory tasks, and subjective reports of listener difficulty all provide critical information about the effects of such challenges on speech recognition. Eye tracking and pupillometry complement these methods by providing objective physiological measures of online cognitive processing during listening. Eye tracking records the moment-to-moment direction of listeners' visual attention, which is closely time-locked to unfolding speech signals, and pupillometry measures the moment-to-moment size of listeners' pupils, which dilate in response to increased cognitive load. In this paper, we review the uses of these two methods for studying challenges to speech recognition.

Citing Articles

Assessment of Speech Processing and Listening Effort Associated With Speech-on-Speech Masking Using the Visual World Paradigm and Pupillometry.

Abdel-Latif K, Koelewijn T, Baskent D, Meister H Trends Hear. 2025; 29():23312165241306091.

PMID: 39800920 PMC: 11726529. DOI: 10.1177/23312165241306091.


Underlying dimensions of real-time word recognition in cochlear implant users.

McMurray B, Smith F, Huffman M, Rooff K, Muegge J, Jeppsen C Nat Commun. 2024; 15(1):7382.

PMID: 39209837 PMC: 11362525. DOI: 10.1038/s41467-024-51514-3.


The Involvement of Listening Effort in Explaining Bilingual Listening Under Adverse Listening Conditions.

Bsharat-Maalouf D, Degani T, Karawani H Trends Hear. 2023; 27:23312165231205107.

PMID: 37941413 PMC: 10637154. DOI: 10.1177/23312165231205107.


The Effect of Breathy Vocal Quality on Speech Intelligibility and Listening Effort in Background Noise.

Shen J, Heller Murray E, Kulick E Trends Hear. 2023; 27:23312165231206925.

PMID: 37817666 PMC: 10566269. DOI: 10.1177/23312165231206925.


Identification of Follow-Up Markers for Rehabilitation Management in Patients with Vestibular Schwannoma.

Xavier F, Chouin E, Tighilet B, Lavieille J, Chabbert C J Clin Med. 2023; 12(18).

PMID: 37762888 PMC: 10531600. DOI: 10.3390/jcm12185947.


References
1.
Hanulikova A, Weber A . Sink positive: linguistic experience with th substitutions influences nonnative word recognition. Atten Percept Psychophys. 2011; 74(3):613-29. DOI: 10.3758/s13414-011-0259-7. View

2.
Brouwer S, Bradlow A . The Temporal Dynamics of Spoken Word Recognition in Adverse Listening Conditions. J Psycholinguist Res. 2015; 45(5):1151-60. PMC: 5664918. DOI: 10.1007/s10936-015-9396-9. View

3.
Ito K, Speer S . Anticipatory effects of intonation: Eye movements during instructed visual search. J Mem Lang. 2009; 58(2):541-573. PMC: 2361389. DOI: 10.1016/j.jml.2007.06.013. View

4.
Snedeker J, Trueswell J . The developing constraints on parsing decisions: the role of lexical-biases and referential scenes in child and adult sentence processing. Cogn Psychol. 2004; 49(3):238-99. DOI: 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2004.03.001. View

5.
Peelle J, Wingfield A . The Neural Consequences of Age-Related Hearing Loss. Trends Neurosci. 2016; 39(7):486-497. PMC: 4930712. DOI: 10.1016/j.tins.2016.05.001. View