EDP Sciences logo
Submit your paper
Search
Menu
All issues Volume 10 (2026) Acta Acust., 10 (2026) 7 References
Open Access
Issue
Acta Acust.
Volume 10, 2026
Article Number 7
Number of page(s) 11
Section Hearing, Audiology and Psychoacoustics
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/aacus/2026003
Published online 17 February 2026
  1. J.-P. Gagné, J. Besser, U. Lemke: Behavioral assessment of listening effort using a dual-task paradigm: a review. Trends in Hearing 21 (2017) 2331216516687287. [Google Scholar]
  2. M.K. Pichora-Fuller, S.E. Kramer, M.A. Eckert, B. Edwards, B.W.Y. Hornsby, L.E. Humes, U. Lemke, T. Lunner, M. Matthen, C.L. Mackersie, G. Naylor, N.A. Phillips, M. Richter, M. Rudner, M.S. Sommers, K.L. Tremblay, A. Wingfield: Hearing impairment and cognitive energy: the framework for understanding effortful listening (FUEL). Ear and Hearing 37, Suppl 1.1 (2016) 5–27. [Google Scholar]
  3. F. Wolters, K. Smeds, E. Schmidt, E.K. Christensen, C. Norup: Common sound scenarios: a context-driven categorization of everyday sound environments for application in hearing-device research. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology 27, 7 (2016) 527–540. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. G. Keidser, G. Naylor, D.S. Brungart, A. Caduff, J. Campos, S. Carlile, M.G. Carpenter, G. Grimm, V. Hohmann, I. Holube, S. Launer, T. Lunner, R. Mehra, F. Rapport, M. Slaney, K. Smeds: The quest for ecological validity in hearing science: What it is, Why it matters, and How to advance it. Ear and Hearing 41 (2020) 5–19. [Google Scholar]
  5. U. Lemke, J. Besser: Cognitive load and listening effort: concepts and age-related considerations. Ear and Hearing 37 (2016) 77–84. [Google Scholar]
  6. A.A. Zekveld, S.E. Kramer: Cognitive processing load across a wide range of listening conditions: insights from pupillometry. Psychophysiology 51, 3 (2014) 277–284. [Google Scholar]
  7. D. Wendt, R.K. Hietkamp, T. Lunner: Impact of noise and noise reduction on processing effort: a pupillometry study. Ear and Hearing 38, 6 (2017) 690. [Google Scholar]
  8. M. Krueger, M. Schulte, M.A. Zokoll, K.C. Wagener, M. Meis, T. Brand, I. Holube: Relation between listening effort and speech intelligibility in noise. American Journal of Audiology 26, 3 (2017) 378–392. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. J. Rennies, H. Schepker, I. Holube, B. Kollmeier: Listening effort and speech intelligibility in listening situations affected by noise and reverberation. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 136, 5 (2014) 2642–2653. [Google Scholar]
  10. T. Koelewijn, H. de Kluiver, B.G. Shinn-Cunningham, A.A. Zekveld, S.E. Kramer: The pupil response reveals increased listening effort when it is difficult to focus attention. Hearing Research 323 (2015) 81–90. [Google Scholar]
  11. J.L. Desjardins, K.A. Doherty: Age-related changes in listening effort for various types of masker noises. Ear and Hearing 34, 3 (2013) 261. [Google Scholar]
  12. J. Seitz, K. Loh, J. Fels: Listening effort in children and adults in classroom noise. Scientific Reports 14, 1 (2024) 25200. [Google Scholar]
  13. D.J. Strauss, F.I. Corona-Strauss, C. Trenado, C. Bernarding, W. Reith, M. Latzel, M. Froehlich: Electrophysiological correlates of listening effort: neurodynamical modeling and measurement. Cognitive Neurodynamics 4, 2 (2010) 119–131. [Google Scholar]
  14. M.B. Winn, J.R. Edwards, R.Y. Litovsky: The impact of auditory spectral resolution on listening effort revealed by pupil dilation. Ear and Hearing 36, 4 (2015) e153. [Google Scholar]
  15. E.M. Picou, T.A. Ricketts, B.W.Y. Hornsby: How hearing aids, background noise, visual cues influence objective listening effort. Ear and Hearing 34, 5 (2013) e52. [Google Scholar]
  16. B.W.Y. Hornsby: The effects of hearing aid use on listening effort and mental fatigue associated with sustained speech processing demands. Ear and Hearing 34, 5 (2013) 523–534. [Google Scholar]
  17. S. Alhanbali, P. Dawes, S. Lloyd, K.J. Munro: Self-reported listening-related effort and fatigue in hearing-impaired adults. Ear and Hearing 38, 1 (2017) e39. [Google Scholar]
  18. S.E. Kuchinsky, J.B. Ahlstrom, K.I. Vaden Jr., S.L. Cute, L.E. Humes, J.R. Dubno, M.A. Eckert: Pupil size varies with word listening and response selection difficulty in older adults with hearing loss. Psychophysiology 50, 1 (2013) 23–34. [Google Scholar]
  19. B. Ohlenforst, A.A. Zekveld, E.P. Jansma, Y. Wang, G. Naylor, A. Lorens, T. Lunner, S.E. Kramer: Effects of hearing impairment and hearing aid amplification on listening effort: a systematic review. Ear and Hearing 38, 3 (2017) 267–281. [Google Scholar]
  20. D.S. Brungart: Informational and energetic masking effects in the perception of two simultaneous talkers. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 109, 3 (2001) 1101–1109. [Google Scholar]
  21. B.G. Shinn-Cunningham: Object-based auditory and visual attention. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 12, 5 (2008) 182–186. [Google Scholar]
  22. M. Cooke, M.L. Garcia Lecumberri, J. Barker: The foreign language cocktail party problem: energetic and informational masking effects in non-native speech perception. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 123, 1 (2008) 414–427. [Google Scholar]
  23. G. Kidd, H.S. Colburn: Informational masking in speech recognition, in: The Auditory System at the Cocktail Party. Springer International Publishing, 2017, pp. 75–109. [Google Scholar]
  24. R.W. Hughes, F. Vachon, D.M. Jones: Disruption of short-term memory by changing and deviant sounds: support for a duplex-mechanism account of auditory distraction. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 33, 6 (2007) 1050–1061. [Google Scholar]
  25. J.E. Marsh, R.W. Hughes, D.M. Jones: Interference by process, not content, determines semantic auditory distraction. Cognition 110, 1 (2009) 23–38. [Google Scholar]
  26. T. Koelewijn, A.A. Zekveld, J.M. Festen, S.E. Kramer: Pupil dilation uncovers extra listening effort in the presence of a single-talker masker. Ear and Hearing 33, 2 (2012) 291. [Google Scholar]
  27. B. Ohlenforst, A.A. Zekveld, T. Lunner, D. Wendt, G. Naylor, Y. Wang, N.J. Versfeld, S.E. Kramer: Impact of stimulus-related factors and hearing impairment on listening effort as indicated by pupil dilation. Hearing Research 351 (2017) 68–79. [Google Scholar]
  28. D. Wendt, T. Koelewijn, P. Ksiżek, S.E. Kramer, T. Lunner: Toward a more comprehensive understanding of the impact of masker type and signal-to-noise ratio on the pupillary response while performing a speech-in-noise test. Hearing Research 369 (2018) 67–78. [Google Scholar]
  29. S. Villard, T. Perrachione, S.-J. Lim, A. Alam, G. Kidd: Listening effort elicited by energetic versus informational masking. Proceedings of Meetings on Acoustics 45, 1 (2022) 050002. [Google Scholar]
  30. S. Villard, T.K. Perrachione, S.-J. Lim, A. Alam, G. Kidd Jr.: Energetic and informational masking place dissociable demands on listening effort: evidence from simultaneous electroencephalography and pupillometrya. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 154, 2 (2023) 1152–1167. [Google Scholar]
  31. V. Stenbäck, E. Marsja, M. Hällgren, B. Lyxell, B. Larsby: Informational masking and listening effort in speech recognition in noise: the role of working memory capacity and inhibitory control in older adults with and without hearing impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 65, 11 (2022) 4417–4428. [Google Scholar]
  32. T. Koelewijn, A.A. Zekveld, J.M. Festen, S.E. Kramer: The influence of informational masking on speech perception and pupil response in adults with hearing impairment. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 135, 3 (2014) 1596–1606. [Google Scholar]
  33. A.L. Francis, M.K. MacPherson, B. Chandrasekaran, A.M. Alvar: Autonomic nervous system responses during perception of masked speech may reflect constructs other than subjective listening effort. Frontiers in Psychology 7 (2016) 170291. [Google Scholar]
  34. B. Ohlenforst, D. Wendt, S.E. Kramer, G. Naylor, A.A. Zekveld, T. Lunner: Impact of SNR, masker type and noise reduction processing on sentence recognition performance and listening effort as indicated by the pupil dilation response. Hearing Research 365 (2018) 90–99. [Google Scholar]
  35. O. Tuomainen, S. Rosen, L. Taschenberger, V. Hazan: The effects of informational and energetic/modulation masking on the efficiency and ease of speech communication across the lifespan. Speech Communication 162 (2024) 103101. [Google Scholar]
  36. A. Kuusinen, K. Kondraciuk, T. Lokki: Effects of masker type and reverberation on speech-in-noise recognition thresholds and listening effort as indexed by pupil dilation responses. Journal of the Audio Engineering Society (2023) 10650. [Google Scholar]
  37. A.B. Jagadeesh, A.K. Uppunda: Speech-on-speech masking: effect of maskers with different degrees of linguistic information. Canadian Journal of Speech-Language Pathology & Audiology 45, 2 (2021) 143–156. [Google Scholar]
  38. D. Brungart, N. Iyer, E.R. Thompson, B.D. Simpson, S. Gordon-Salant, J. Schurman, C. Vogel, K. Grant: Interactions between listening effort and masker type on the energetic and informational masking of speech stimuli. Proceedings of Meetings on Acoustics 19, 1 (2013) 060146. [Google Scholar]
  39. H. Meister, S. Rählmann, U. Lemke, J. Besser: Verbal response times as a potential indicator of cognitive load during conventional speech audiometry with matrix sentences. Trends in Hearing 22 (2018) 2331216518793255. [Google Scholar]
  40. M. Krueger, M. Schulte, T. Brand, I. Holube: Development of an adaptive scaling method for subjective listening effort. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 141, 6 (2017) 4680–4693. [Google Scholar]
  41. I. Holube, S. Taesler, S. Ibelings, M. Hansen, J. Ooster: Automated measurement of speech recognition, reaction time, speech rate and their relation to self-reported listening effort for normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners using various maskers. Trends in Hearing 28 (2024) 23312165241276435. [Google Scholar]
  42. B. Larsby, M. Hällgren, B. Lyxell: The interference of different background noises on speech processing in elderly hearing impaired subjects. International Journal of Audiology 47 (2008) 83–90. [Google Scholar]
  43. T. Francart, A. van Wieringen, J. Wouters: Comparison of fluctuating maskers for speech recognition tests. International Journal of Audiology 50, 1 (2011) 2–13. [Google Scholar]
  44. S. Rosen, P. Souza, C. Ekelund, A.A. Majeed: Listening to speech in a background of other talkers: effects of talker number and noise vocoding. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 133, 4 (2013) 2431–2443. [Google Scholar]
  45. J. Rennies, V. Best, E. Roverud, G. Kidd: Energetic and informational components of speech-on-speech masking in binaural speech intelligibility and perceived listening effort. Trends in Hearing 23 (2019) 2331216519854597. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. R. McGarrigle, K.J. Munro, P. Dawes, A.J. Stewart, D.R. Moore, J.G. Barry, S. Amitay: Listening effort and fatigue: What exactly are we measuring? A British society of audiology cognition in hearing special interest group “White Paper”. International Journal Of Audiology 53, 7 (2014) 433–440. [Google Scholar]
  47. J.E. Peelle: Listening effort: How the cognitive consequences of acoustic challenge are reflected in brain and behavior. Ear and Hearing 39, 2 (2018) 204–214. [Google Scholar]
  48. K. Sewell, V. Brown, G. Farwell, M. Rogers, X. Zhang, J. Strand: The effects of temporal cues, point-light displays, and faces on speech identification and listening effort. PLoS One 18 (2023) e0290826. [Google Scholar]
  49. J. Nirme, B. Sahlén, V.L. Åhlander, J. Brännström, M. Haake: Audio-visual speech comprehension in noise with real and virtual speakers. Speech Communication 116 (2020) 44–55. [Google Scholar]
  50. C. Bernarding, D.J. Strauss, R. Hannemann, H. Seidler, F.I. Corona-Strauss: Objective assessment of listening effort in the oscillatory EEG: comparison of different hearing aid configurations, in: 36th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, Chicago, IL, USA 2014, pp. 2653–2656. [Google Scholar]
  51. A. Dimitrijevic, M.L. Smith, D.S. Kadis, D.R. Moore: Neural indices of listening effort in noisy environments. Scientific Reports 9, 1 (2019) 11278. [Google Scholar]
  52. A. Devesse, A. van Wieringen, J. Wouters: AVATAR assesses speech understanding and multitask costs in ecologically relevant listening situations. Ear and Hearing 41, 3 (2020) 521–531. [Google Scholar]
  53. Y.-H. Wu, N. Aksan, M. Rizzo, E. Stangl, X. Zhang, R. Bentler: Measuring listening effort: driving simulator versus simple dual-task paradigm. Ear and Hearing 35, 6 (2014) 623–632. [Google Scholar]
  54. D.E. Broadbent: Perception and Communication. Pergamon Press, Elmsford, NY, US, 1958. [Google Scholar]
  55. D. Kahneman: Attention and Effort. Prentice-Hall, 1973. [Google Scholar]
  56. S.E. Kuchinsky, F.J. Gallun, A.K.C. Lee: Note on the dual-task paradigm and its use to measure listening effort. Trends in Hearing 28 (2024) 23312165241292215. [Google Scholar]
  57. P.A. Gosselin, J.-P. Gagné: Older adults expend more listening effort than young adults recognizing audiovisual speech in noise. International Journal of Audiology 50, 11 (2011) 786–792. [Google Scholar]
  58. S.J. Schlittmeier, I.S. Schiller, C. Mohanathasan, A. Liebl: Measuring text comprehension and memory: a comprehensive database for Heard Text Recall: (HTR) and Read Text Recall: (RTR) paradigms, with optional note-taking and graphical displays, Lehr- und Forschungsgebiet Arbeits- und Ingenieurpsychologie, RWTH Aachen University, RWTH-2023-05285, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  59. E. Fintor, L. Aspöck, J. Fels, S.J. Schlittmeier: The role of spatial separation of two talkers’ auditory stimuli in the listener’s memory of running speech: listening effort in a non-noisy conversational setting. International Journal of Audiology 61, 5 (2022) 371–379. [Google Scholar]
  60. J. Ehret, A. Bönsch, P. Nossol, C.A. Ermert, C. Mohanathasan, S.J. Schlittmeier, J. Fels, T.W. Kuhlen: Who’s next? Integrating non-verbal turn-taking cues for embodied conversational agents, in: Proceedings of the 23rd ACM International Conference on Intelligent Virtual Agents: (IVA ’23), 2023, pp. 1–8. [Google Scholar]
  61. J. Ehret, I.S. Schiller, C. Breuer, T.W. Kuhlen: Audiovisual coherence: is embodiment of background noise sources a necessity?, in: IEEE Virtual Reality. IEEE, 2024. [Google Scholar]
  62. I.S. Schiller, C. Breuer, L. Aspöck, J. Ehret, A. Bönsch, T.W. Kuhlen, J. Fels, S.J. Schlittmeier: A lecturer’s voice quality and its effect on memory, listening effort, and perception in a VR environment. Scientific Reports 14, 1 (2024) 12407. [Google Scholar]
  63. J.L. Szalma, P.A. Hancock: Noise effects on human performance: a meta-analytic synthesis. Psychological Bulletin 137, 4 (2011) 682–707. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  64. C. Mohanathasan, C.A. Ermert, J. Fels, T.W. Kuhlen, S.J. Schlittmeier: Exploring short-term memory and listening effort in two-talker conversations: the influence of soft and moderate background noise. PLoS One 20, 2 (2025) e0318821. [Google Scholar]
  65. C.A. Ermert, J. Ehret, C. Mohanathasan, A. Bönsch, T.W. Kuhlen, S.J. Schlittmeier, J. Fels: Influence of (non-) intelligible background speech on memory and listening effort in conversational situations, in: Proceedings of DAS/DAGA 2025: 51st Annual Meeting on Acoustics, 2025, pp. 159–160. [Google Scholar]
  66. R Core Team R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing, Vienna, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  67. H. Snellen: Probebuchstaben zur Bestimmung der Sehschärfe. H. Peters, H. Peters. [Google Scholar]
  68. C.A. Ermert, C. Mohanathasan, J. Ehret, S.J. Schlittmeier, T. Kuhlen, J. Fels: AuViST – An Audio-Visual Speech and Text Database for the Heard-Text-Recall Paradigm. Institute for Hearing Technology and Acoustics, RWTH Aachen University, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  69. K.C. Wagener, S. Hochmuth, M. Ahrlich, M.A. Zokoll, B. Kollmeier: Der weibliche Oldenburger Satztest, 17. Jahrestagung der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Audiologie, 2014, 4p. [Google Scholar]
  70. K.C. Wagener, T. Brand: Sentence intelligibility in noise for listeners with normal hearing and hearing impairment: influence of measurement procedure and masking parameters. International Journal of Audiology 44, 3 (2005) 144–156. [Google Scholar]
  71. K. Wagener, V. Kuehnel, B. Kollmeier: Entwicklung und Evaluation eines Satztests für die deutsche Sprache I: Design des Oldenburger Satztests. Zeitschrift für Audiologie 38, 1 (1999) 4–15. [Google Scholar]
  72. K. Wagener, T. Brand, B. Kollmeier: Entwicklung und Evaluation eines Satztests für die Deutsche Sprache II: Optimierung des Oldenburger Satztests. Zeitschrift für Audiologie 38, 2 (1999) 44–56. [Google Scholar]
  73. K. Wagener, T. Brand, B. Kollmeier: Entwicklung und Evaluation eines Satztests für die Deutsche Sprache III: Evaluation des Oldenburger Satztests. Zeitschrift für Audiologie 38, 3 (1999) 86–95. [Google Scholar]
  74. C.A. Ermert, M. Yadav, J.E. Marsh, S.J. Schlittmeier, T.W. Kuhlen, J. Fels: Serial recall in spatial acoustic environments: irrelevant sound effect and spatial source alternations. Scientific Reports 15, 1 (2025) 32473. [Google Scholar]
  75. J. Cassell: Embodied conversational interface agents. Communications of the ACM 43, 4 (2000) 70–78. [Google Scholar]
  76. Virtual Reality & Immersive Visualization Group, RWTH Aachen University: Virtual Acoustics Plugin, 2022. https://git-ce.rwth-aachen.de/vr-vis/VR-Group/unreal-development/plugins/character-plugin. [Google Scholar]
  77. J. Ehret, A. Bönsch, J. Fels, S.J. Schlittmeier, T.W. Kuhlen: StudyFramework: comfortably setting up and conducting factorial-design studies using the unreal engine, in: 2024 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces Abstracts and Workshops: (VRW), 2024, pp. 442–449. [Google Scholar]
  78. D. Gilbert, J. Ehret, M. Krüger, D. Rupp, S. Pape, K. Helwig, T. Römer, S. Oehrl, A.C. Demiralp, F. Qurabi, V. Wolf, K. Karwacki, L. Schröder: Virtual Reality, Immersive Visualization Group: RWTH VR Group Unreal Engine Toolkit, 2024. [Google Scholar]
  79. Institute for Hearing Technology and Acoustics, RWTH Aachen University, Philipp Schäfer, Jonas Stienen, Lukas Aspöck, Michael Vorländer: Virtual Acoustics – A Real-Time Auralization Framework for Scientific Research, 2021. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13744493. [Google Scholar]
  80. Virtual Reality & Immersive Visualization Group and Institute for Hearing Technology and Acoustics, RWTH Aachen University: Virtual Acoustics Plugin, 2023. https://git-ce.rwth-aachen.de/vr-vis/VR-Group/unreal-development/plugins/unreal-va-plugin. [Google Scholar]
  81. A. Schmitz: Ein neues digitales Kunstkopfmeßsystem. Acustica: International Journal on Acoustics 81, 4 (1995) 416–420. [Google Scholar]
  82. B. Masiero, J. Fels: Perceptually robust headphone equalization for binaural reproduction, in: Audio Engineering Society Convention. Vol. 130. Audio Engineering Society, 2011, pp. 1–7. [Google Scholar]
  83. A. Kassambara: Rstatix: Pipe-friendly framework for basic statistical tests, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  84. P.-C. Bürkner: BRMS: An R package for Bayesian multilevel models using Stan. Journal of Statistical Software 80 (2017) 1–28. [Google Scholar]
  85. T. Sivula, M. Magnusson, A.A. Matamoros, A. Vehtari: Uncertainty in Bayesian leave-one-out cross-validation based model comparison. Bayesian Analysis 1 (2025) 1–31. [Google Scholar]
  86. R.V. Lenth, B. Banfai, B. Bolker, P. Buerkner, I. Giné-Vázquez, M. Herve, M. Jung, J. Love, F. Miguez, J. Piaskowski, H. Riebl, H. Singmann: Emmeans: Estimated Marginal Means, Aka Least-Squares Means, 2025. [Google Scholar]
  87. J.K. Kruschke, T.M. Liddell: The Bayesian new statistics: hypothesis testing, estimation, meta-analysis, and power analysis from a Bayesian perspective. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 25, 1 (2018) 178–206. [Google Scholar]
  88. M. Yadav, M. Georgi, L. Leist, M. Klatte, S.J. Schlittmeier, J. Fels: Cognitive performance in open-plan office acoustic simulations: effects of room acoustics and semantics but not spatial separation of sound sources. Applied Acoustics 211 (2023) 109559. [Google Scholar]
  89. A. Devesse, A. Dudek, A. van Wieringen, J. Wouters: Speech intelligibility of virtual humans. International Journal of Audiology 57, 12 (2018) 914–922. [Google Scholar]
  90. M.M.E. Hendrikse, G. Llorach, G. Grimm, V. Hohmann: Influence of visual cues on head and eye movements during listening tasks in multi-talker audiovisual environments with animated characters. Speech Communication 101 (2018) 70–84. [Google Scholar]
  91. K. Shavit-Cohen, E.Z. Golumbic: The dynamics of attention shifts among concurrent speech in a naturalistic multi-speaker virtual environment. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 13 (2019) 386. [Google Scholar]
  92. E.M. Picou, J. Gordon, T.A. Ricketts: The effects of noise and reverberation on listening effort in adults with normal hearing. Ear and Hearing 37, 1 (2016) 1–13. [Google Scholar]
  93. E.M. Picou, B. Bean, S.C. Marcrum, T.A. Ricketts, B.W.Y. Hornsby: Moderate reverberation does not increase subjective fatigue, subjective listening effort, or behavioral listening effort in school-aged children. Frontiers in Psychology 10 (2019) 1749. [Google Scholar]
  94. N. Prodi, C. Visentin: A slight increase in reverberation time in the classroom affects performance and behavioral listening effort. Ear and Hearing 43, 2 (2022) 460. [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.