| Sumario: | • Dual-task paradigms are commonly used to evaluate listening effort. • Dual-task interference provides insight into individual prioritization strategies. • Prioritization instructions failed to ensure focus on the primary task. • Individual prioritization strategies varied across listening conditions. • Findings question the current use of listening effort dual-task paradigms. This study examined the impact of instructions on the prioritization strategy employed by individuals during a listening effort dual-task paradigm. The dual-task paradigm consisted of a primary speech understanding task in different listening conditions and a secondary visual memory task, both performed separately (baseline) and simultaneously (dual-task). Twenty-three normal-hearing participants (mean age: 36.8 years; 14 females) were directed to prioritize the primary speech understanding task in the dual-task condition, whereas another twenty-three (matched for age, gender, and education level) received no specific instructions regarding task priority. Both groups performed the dual-task paradigm twice (mean interval: 14.8 days). Patterns of dual-task interference were assessed by plotting the dual-task effect of the primary and secondary task against each other. Fisher's exact tests were used to assess whether there was an association between interference patterns and group (non-prioritizing and prioritizing) across all listening conditions and test sessions. No statistically significant association was found between the pattern of dual-task interference and the group to which the participants belong for any of the listening conditions and test sessions. Descriptive analysis revealed no consistent strategy use within individuals across listening conditions and test sessions, suggesting a lack of a uniform approach regardless of the given instructions. Providing prioritization instructions was insufficient to ensure that an individual will mainly focus on the primary task and consistently adhere to this strategy across listening conditions and test sessions. These results raised reservations about the current usage of dual-task paradigms for listening effort.
|
|---|