Effect of Auditory Distraction on Working Memory, Attention Switching, and Listening Comprehension

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I have appreciated the opportunity to review this interesting manuscript that is about examining the effect of the presence of a low-level background noise on attention switching, working memory and listening comprehension. Fifty-three adults with normal pure-tone hearing thresholds and native speakers of American English participated in the study, which involved listening to different types of speech stimuli (ie.: digits, monosyllabic words, sentences) presented at 65 dB SPL, with and without the presence of a competing speech spectrum noise. For the noise conditions, the level of the noise was set as so to achieve 90% correct speech recognition (hence, not necessarily the same noise level for all participants).

The title adequately reveals the nature of the article. The abstract is clear, I suggest however to add precision about the type of noise (speech spectrum noise) that was used, as the conclusions of the study may only specifically apply to that type of noise.

The theoretical reasoning and research procedures are adequately presented. The presentation of the rationale of the work is logical. As far as I can tell from the information provided, the data seem to be analyzed appropriately and free from error.

The paper is effective at reporting the different stages of the study, as well as the theoretical background. The manuscript is easy to read and the use of English is correct. Overall, this manuscript reads well and conveys the message clearly.

Here are some additional points that I would like the authors to consider:

• It may be worth mentioning, especially in the Introduction section, there are other studies that have reported that low level of noise may enhance arousal levels, leading to faster and better hearing performance.  For example:

Alain, C., Quan, J., McDonald, K., & Van Roon, P. (2009). Noise‐induced increase in human auditory evoked neuromagnetic fields. European Journal of Neuroscience, 30(1), 132-142.

Ries, D. T. (2007). The influence of noise type and level upon stochastic resonance in human audition. Hearing research, 228(1-2), 136-143.

Zeng, F. G., Fu, Q. J., & Morse, R. (2000). Human hearing enhanced by noise. Brain research, 869(1-2), 251-255.

• It may also be worth mentioning, especially in the Abstract, Discussion and Conclusions sections, the results obtained apply to non-informational background noise, and additional research is required to know if similar findings are to be found with other types of noises, such as informational masking noises for example.

Specific comments:

• I would also suggest revising the comment found on page 3 (line 131), about using the ICRA noise “as a distractor not as masker”, because this type of noise causes masking. It does cause energetic (or acoustic) masking since it contains the same spectral energy as speech.

I think I understand what the author means, but it would worth specifying that an informational masking noise, such as a multi-talker babble, was not selected to avoid any increase in the cognitive load while performing the experimental tasks and not saying that the ICRA noise is not a masker.

Also, as there are more than one noise produced by the ICRA group (I believe there are about 9 noises - see reference below), I also suggest to be more specific and add which of the “ICRA noise” was used.

Dreschler, W. A., Verschuure, H., Ludvigsen, C., & Westermann, S. (2001). ICRA noises: artificial noise signals with speech-like spectral and temporal properties for hearing instrument assessment. International Collegium for Rehabilitative Audiology. Audiology : official organ of the International Society of Audiology, 40(3), 148–157.

• I believe the sentence starting with “The level of noise… “ on Page 11, line 446 is incomplete. Please revise.

Overall, the work reported represent a sufficiently significant extension of our knowledge to warrant publication. I enjoyed reading the manuscript and I commend the author for their work.

Recommendation

• Suitable for publication after minor revisions

Author Response

Authors’ responses to reviewer comments

Thank you for your valuable suggestions, please see my response highlighted.

Reviewer #1

I have appreciated the opportunity to review this interesting manuscript that is about examining the effect of the presence of a low-level background noise on attention switching, working memory and listening comprehension. Fifty-three adults with normal pure-tone hearing thresholds and native speakers of American English participated in the study, which involved listening to different types of speech stimuli (ie.: digits, monosyllabic words, sentences) presented at 65 dB SPL, with and without the presence of a competing speech spectrum noise. For the noise conditions, the level of the noise was set as so to achieve 90% correct speech recognition (hence, not necessarily the same noise level for all participants).

The title adequately reveals the nature of the article. The abstract is clear, I suggest however to add precision about the type of noise (speech spectrum noise) that was used, as the conclusions of the study may only specifically apply to that type of noise.

Response: Abstract is revised to add information about noise spectrum as suggested.

The theoretical reasoning and research procedures are adequately presented. The presentation of the rationale of the work is logical. As far as I can tell from the information provided, the data seem to be analyzed appropriately and free from error.

The paper is effective at reporting the different stages of the study, as well as the theoretical background. The manuscript is easy to read and the use of English is correct. Overall, this manuscript reads well and conveys the message clearly.

Here are some additional points that I would like the authors to consider:

• It may be worth mentioning, especially in the Introduction section, there are other studies that have reported that low level of noise may enhance arousal levels, leading to faster and better hearing performance.  For example:

Alain, C., Quan, J., McDonald, K., & Van Roon, P. (2009). Noise‐induced increase in human auditory evoked neuromagnetic fields. European Journal of Neuroscience, 30(1), 132-142.

Ries, D. T. (2007). The influence of noise type and level upon stochastic resonance in human audition. Hearing research, 228(1-2), 136-143.

Zeng, F. G., Fu, Q. J., & Morse, R. (2000). Human hearing enhanced by noise. Brain research, 869(1-2), 251-255.

Response: I have revised the introduction section to reflect the reviewer’s suggestions to include these

• It may also be worth mentioning, especially in the Abstract, Discussion and Conclusions sections, the results obtained apply to non-informational background noise, and additional research is required to know if similar findings are to be found with other types of noises, such as informational masking noises for example.

Response: I have revised the abstract and conclusion section as suggested by the reviewer.

Specific comments:

• I would also suggest revising the comment found on page 3 (line 131), about using the ICRA noise “as a distractor not as masker”, because this type of noise causes masking. It does cause energetic (or acoustic) masking since it contains the same spectral energy as speech.

I think I understand what the author means, but it would worth specifying that an informational masking noise, such as a multi-talker babble, was not selected to avoid any increase in the cognitive load while performing the experimental tasks and not saying that the ICRA noise is not a masker.

Also, as there are more than one noise produced by the ICRA group (I believe there are about 9 noises - see reference below), I also suggest to be more specific and add which of the “ICRA noise” was used.

Dreschler, W. A., Verschuure, H., Ludvigsen, C., & Westermann, S. (2001). ICRA noises: artificial noise signals with speech-like spectral and temporal properties for hearing instrument assessment. International Collegium for Rehabilitative Audiology. Audiology : official organ of the International Society of Audiology, 40(3), 148–157.

• I believe the sentence starting with “The level of noise… “ on Page 11, line 446 is incomplete. Please revise.

Overall, the work reported represent a sufficiently significant extension of our knowledge to warrant publication. I enjoyed reading the manuscript and I commend the author for their work.

Response: Method section has been revised to include details about ICRA noise and to reflect the point about informational masking as suggested.

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper aims to understand the effects of distracting noise on listening comprehension and auditory-based cognitive task performance. This paper shows that the presentation of noise increases cognitive task performance. There is novelty in using auditory stimuli for both the measurement of perceptual performance and cognitive load. On the other hand, it has been shown that perceptual performance can be improved by increasing cognitive load theory (e.g. Nilli Lavie, "Perceptual load as a necessary condition for selective attention," J. Experimental Psychology: Human perception and performance, (1995)). It would be good to have a discussion from this perspective as well.

increased by the presentation of noise is information processing speed. However, AS updating accuracy is decreased by noise presentation as Fig. 1. Is the decrease in accuracy a trade-off for the improvement in RT? If it is a trade-off relationship, what is the acceptable range of the decrease in accuracy? Or is it an independent event? Anyway, the title of this paper is a bit too broad in terms of the research focus. I ask you to reconsider.

Author Response

Authors’ responses to reviewer comments

Thank you for your valuable suggestions, please see my response highlighted.

Reviewer #2:

This paper aims to understand the effects of distracting noise on listening comprehension and auditory-based cognitive task performance. This paper shows that the presentation of noise increases cognitive task performance. There is novelty in using auditory stimuli for both the measurement of perceptual performance and cognitive load. On the other hand, it has been shown that perceptual performance can be improved by increasing cognitive load theory (e.g. Nilli Lavie, "Perceptual load as a necessary condition for selective attention," J. Experimental Psychology: Human perception and performance, (1995)). It would be good to have a discussion from this perspective as well.

Response: perceptual load theory perspective has been discussed briefly in the revised manuscript. Page 10, from line 438

increased by the presentation of noise is information processing speed. However, AS updating accuracy is decreased by noise presentation as Fig. 1. Is the decrease in accuracy a trade-off for the improvement in RT? If it is a trade-off relationship, what is the acceptable range of the decrease in accuracy? Or is it an independent event? Anyway, the title of this paper is a bit too broad in terms of the research focus. I ask you to reconsider.

Response:  Consistent with the literature (Unsworth & Engle, 2008) there was no accuracy and RT trade off found in the AS task.

Unsworth, N., & Engle, R. W. (2008). Speed and accuracy of accessing information in working memory: An individual differences investigation of focus switching. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Learning Memory and Cognition, 34, 616–630. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.34.3.616