Search

Abstract Communication is a fundamental aspect of human interaction, yet many individuals must speak in less-than-ideal acoustic environments daily. Adapting their speech to ensure intelligibility in these varied settings can impose a significant cognitive burden. Understanding this burden on talkers has significant implications for the design of public spaces and workplace environments, as well as speaker training programs. The aim of this study was to examine how room acoustics and speaking style affect cognitive load through self-rating of mental demand and pupillometry. Nineteen adult native speakers of American English were instructed to read sentences in both casual and clear speech—a technique known to enhance intelligibility—across three levels of reverberation (0.05 s, 1.2 s, and 1.83 s at 500–1000 Hz). Our findings revealed that speaking style consistently affects the cognitive load on talkers more than room acoustics across the tested reverberation range. Specifically, pupillometry data suggested that speaking in clear speech elevates the cognitive load comparably to speaking in a room with long reverberation, challenging the conventional view of clear speech as an ‘easy’ strategy for improving intelligibility. These results underscore the importance of accounting for talkers' cognitive load when optimizing room acoustics and developing speech production training.

Abstract Cochlear implant users experience difficulties controlling their vocalizations compared to normal hearing peers. However, less is known about their voice quality. The primary aim of the present study was to determine if cochlear implant users’ voice quality would be categorized as dysphonic by the Acoustic Voice Quality Index (AVQI) and smoothed cepstral peak prominence (CPPS). A secondary aim was to determine if vocal quality is further impacted when using bilateral implants compared to using only one implant. The final aim was to determine how residual hearing impacts voice quality. Twenty-seven cochlear implant users participated in the present study and were recorded while sustaining a vowel and while reading a standardized passage. These recordings were analyzed to calculate the AVQI and CPPS. The results indicate that CI users’ voice quality was detrimentally affected by using their CI, raising to the level of a dysphonic voice. Specifically, when using their CI, mean AVQI scores were 4.0 and mean CPPS values were 11.4 dB, which indicates dysphonia. There were no significant differences in voice quality when comparing participants with bilateral implants to those with one implant. Finally, for participants with residual hearing, as hearing thresholds worsened, the likelihood of a dysphonic voice decreased.