The Moderating Effect of Success Importance on the Relationship Between Listening Demand and Listening Effort.

TLDR: Results for pre-ejection period reactivity supported the hypothesis that the relationship between listening demand and listening effort is moderated by other variables and suggested that a broader perspective on the determinants of listening effort was warranted.

Abstract: A common element of the psychophysiological research on listening effort is the focus on listening demand as determinant of effort. The article discusses preceding studies and theorizing on effort to show that the link between listening demand and listening effort is moderated by various variables. Moreover, I will present a recent study that examined the joint effect of listening demand and success importance on effort-related cardiovascular reactivity in an auditory discrimination task. Results for pre-ejection period reactivity-an indicator of sympathetic activity-supported the hypothesis that the relationship between listening demand and listening effort is moderated by other variables: Pre-ejection period reactivity was higher in the high-demand-high-success-importance condition than in the other three conditions. This new finding as well as the findings of previous research on effort suggest that a broader perspective on the determinants of listening effort is warranted.

Figures

Table 2 Cell Means and Standard Errors (in Parentheses) of Cardiovascular Reactivity During the Four Blocks of the Auditory Discrimination Task

Table 1 Cell Means and Standard Errors (in parentheses) of Reaction Times, of the Number of Correct Responses, and of the Percentage of Correct Responses During the Four Blocks of the Auditory Discrimination Task

Figure 1. Mean PEP reactivity during the auditory discrimination task. Error bars represent standard errors of the mean.

Full text

Richter, M
The moderating effect of success importance on the relationship between
listening demand and listening effort
http://researchonline.ljmu.ac.uk/id/eprint/2878/
Article
LJMU has developed LJMU Research Online for users to access the research output of the
University more effectively. Copyright © and Moral Rights for the papers on this site are retained by
the individual authors and/or other copyright owners. Users may download and/or print one copy of
any article(s) in LJMU Research Online to facilitate their private study or for non-commercial research.
You may not engage in further distribution of the material or use it for any profit-making activities or
any commercial gain.
The version presented here may differ from the published version or from the version of the record.
Please see the repository URL above for details on accessing the published version and note that
access may require a subscription.
For more information please contact researchonline@ljmu.ac.uk
http://researchonline.ljmu.ac.uk/
Citation (please note it is advisable to refer to the publisher’s version if you
intend to cite from this work)
Richter, M (2016) The moderating effect of success importance on the
relationship between listening demand and listening effort. Ear and
Hearing, 37. 111S-117S. ISSN 1538-4667
LJMU Research Online

Running head: SUCCESS IMPORTANCE, LISTENING DEMAND, AND LISTENING EFFORT 1
Final peer-reviewed manuscript.
This article may not exactly replicate the final version published in the Lippincott,
Williams & Wilkins journal.
Richter, M. (in press). The moderating effect of success importance on the
relationship between listening demand and listening effort. Ear and Hearing.

Running head: SUCCESS IMPORTANCE, LISTENING DEMAND, AND LISTENING EFFORT 2
The moderating effect of success importance on the relationship between listening
demand and listening effort
Michael Richter
Liverpool John Moores University
Author Note
Michael Richter, School of Natural Sciences and Psychology, Liverpool John Moores
University.
Correspondence should be addressed to Michael Richter, School of Natural Sciences
and Psychology, Liverpool John Moores University, Tom Reilly Building, Byrom Street,
Liverpool, L3 3AF, UK. E-mail: m.richter@ljmu.ac.uk

Running head: SUCCESS IMPORTANCE, LISTENING DEMAND, AND LISTENING EFFORT 3
ABSTRACT
A common element of the psychophysiological research on listening effort is the focus on
listening demand as determinant of effort. The paper discusses preceding studies and
theorizing on effort to show that the link between listening demand and listening effort is
moderated by various variables. Moreover, I will present a recent study that examined the
joint effect of listening demand and success importance on effort-related cardiovascular
reactivity in an auditory discrimination task. Results for pre-ejection period reactivity—an
indicator of sympathetic activity—supported the hypothesis that the relationship between
listening demand and listening effort is moderated by other variables: Pre-ejection period
reactivity was higher in the high-demand-high-success-importance condition than in the other
three conditions. This new finding as well as the findings of previous research on effort
suggest that a broader perspective on the determinants of listening effort is warranted.

Running head: SUCCESS IMPORTANCE, LISTENING DEMAND, AND LISTENING EFFORT 4
INTRODUCTION
Research on listening effort has employed self-reports, behavioral measures, and
physiological measures to draw inferences about listening demand and listening effort.
Among the physiological measures that have been used are pupil dilation (e.g., Koelewijn et
al. 2012; Kramer et al. 1997; Kramer et al. 2013; Kramer et al., this issue, pp. XXXX;
Kuchinsky et al. 2013; Piquado et al. 2010; Zekveld & Kramer 2014; Zekveld et al. 2010),
heart rate, skin conductance, skin temperature, EMG activity (e.g., Mackersie & Cones 2011),
heart rate variability (e.g., Mackersie & Calderon-Moultrie, this issue, pp. XXXX), fMRI
activity (Wild et al. 2012), ERPs (Obleser & Kotz 2011), and EEG alpha power (Obleser et
al. 2012) (see McGarrigle et al. 2014, for a summary of listening effort studies using
physiological measures published between 2008 and 2013). A common element of these
psychophysiological studies on listening effort is that they examined the effects of variables
related to listening difficulty on the physiological measures of interest. For instance, Zekveld
et al. (2010) varied the signal-to-noise ratio of speech in noise and found a negative
relationship between signal-to-noise ratio and pupil dilation. Researchers differed in the
conclusions that they drew from the finding that a physiological measure changed in response
to the manipulation of listening difficulty. Some researchers interpreted the observed changes
as evidence that the physiological measure indicates listening effort or resource allocation
(e.g., Koelewijn et al. 2012; Mackersie & Cones 2011; Obleser & Kotz 2011; Piquado et al.
2010; Wild et al. 2012). Other researchers suggested that this provides evidence for a
physiological correlate of cognitive load or processing load (e.g., Kramer et al. 2013;
Kuchinsky et al. 2013; Zekveld & Kramer 2014; Zekveld et al. 2010). This paper aims at
challenging the first interpretation by pointing out that research on effort mobilization has
demonstrated that the difficulty-effort relationship depends on many factors (see Pichora-

Frequently asked questions

Q1. What are the contributions in this paper?

The paper discusses preceding studies and theorizing on effort to show that the link between listening demand and listening effort is moderated by various variables. Moreover, I will present a recent study that examined the joint effect of listening demand and success importance on effort-related cardiovascular reactivity in an auditory discrimination task. This new finding as well as the findings of previous research on effort suggest that a broader perspective on the determinants of listening effort is warranted. Other researchers suggested that this provides evidence for a physiological correlate of cognitive load or processing load ( e. g., Kramer et al. This paper aims at challenging the first interpretation by pointing out that research on effort mobilization has demonstrated that the difficulty-effort relationship depends on many factors ( see PichoraRunning head: SUCCESS IMPORTANCE, LISTENING DEMAND, AND LISTENING EFFORT 5 Fuller et al., this issue, pp. XXXX, for an extensive discussion of the various factors that affect listening effort ). One of the first authors acknowledging that the relationship between task difficulty and effort is not proportional was Kukla ( 1972 ). Drawing on a seminal paper by Wright Running head: SUCCESS IMPORTANCE, LISTENING DEMAND, AND LISTENING EFFORT 7 ( 1996 ), this research has used sympathetic-driven cardiovascular measures as indicators of effort. Having studied Obrist 's work on active coping ( e. g., Light & Obrist 1983 ; Obrist 1981 ), Wright suggested that effort is reflected in the effect of the sympathetic system on the heart. In this study, participants performed either an easy or a difficult ambiguous categorization task. The study of Richter and Gendolla ( 2009 ) constitutes an example for the effect of success importance on effort under conditions of unclear task difficulty. The study presented in this article aimed at providing first evidence for the moderating effect of success Running head: SUCCESS IMPORTANCE, LISTENING DEMAND, AND LISTENING EFFORT 9 importance—manipulated by offering different levels of reward for a successful task performance—on the relationship between listening demand and effort investment. MATERIALS AND METHODS Participants and Design 16 psychology students participated in the study for course credit ( mean age = 23. 88 years, 14 women and 2 men ). The assessment of blood pressure and HR provided information about potential confounding effects on pre-ejection period ( Obrist et al. The next trial followed after an inter-trial interval of 125 ms. Following the interpretation of Bayes factors by Raftery ( 1995 ), this provides positive evidence in favor of the joint effect of task difficulty and success importance predicted by motivational intensity theory, and against a model that only considers task difficulty as determinant of listening effort. The approach presented above, and followed in many studies that aimed at validating a physiological measure as an indicator of a psychological state, is to draw on existing theoretical approaches and to take their hypothesis for granted. It makes, for instance, only sense to conduct a validation study that examines changes in a measure as a function of listening demand if one takes for granted that listening demand changes listening effort. It would avoid situations where one has to decide between taking for granted the relationship between a factor and listening effort to conduct a validation study and testing the hypothesis that the factor has an effect on listening effort. The research and the theories cited and presented in this paper point out that it is not sufficient to assess the effect of listening demand when examining listening effort. Cortisol, chromogranin A, and pupillary responses evoked by speech recognition tasks in normally hearing and hearing-impaired listeners: A pilot study. In his attributional theory of performance, he integrated empirical evidence that suggested that the proportional relationship between task difficulty and effort is limited by individual ability. Brehm ( Brehm & Self 1989 ) introduced with motivational intensity theory a model that added further moderators of the link between task difficulty and effort. He suggested that individuals are motivated to conserve resources that are potentially important for survival. Motivational intensity theory suggests that individuals use in this situation the importance of success to determine effort investment. Any cardiovascular measure that reflects sympathetic effects on the heart would thus constitute a potential indicator of effort. Even if there is no theoretical or empirical reason that suggests that listening effort is qualitatively different from effort in general ( i. e., that the underlying mechanisms are different ), empirical research that demonstrates that the theory 's predictions also hold for listening effort is lacking. Sherwood et al. ( 1990 ) and Obrist et al. ( 1987 ) suggested that HR and DBP indicate changes in preload and afterload. They recommended that decreased pre-ejection period is only interpreted as reflecting increased sympathetic activity if there is no parallel decrease in HR—a decrease in HR would suggest an increase in preload—and no parallel decrease in DBP–a decrease in DBP would suggest a decrease in afterload. Furthermore, participants learned that they could earn in each block either CHF 0. 20 ( about USD 0. 20, low reward condition ) or CHF 2 ( high reward condition ) by responding correctly in at least 90 % of the block 's trials. Correspondingly, a decrease in PEP from rest to task performance potentially indicates an increase in myocardial sympathetic activity. They suggest that the strong focus on listening demand in the research on listening effort is unwarranted. There is a second approach to the validation of physiological indicators of listening effort that might be more promising. Wright 's ( 1996 ) suggestion that effort is associated with myocardial sympathetic activity allowed researchers to work with a definition of effort that is independent of motivational Running head: SUCCESS IMPORTANCE, LISTENING DEMAND, AND LISTENING EFFORT 18 intensity theory 's predictions about the determinants of effort. Effort analysis of gender differences in cardiovascular response: Further evidence involving a traditionally feminine incentive.