• Behavioural measures of listening effort in school-aged children: Examining the effects of SNR, hearing loss, and amplification

      McGarrigle, Ronan; Gustafson, Samantha; Hornsby, Benjamin; Bess, Fred; University of Chester; Vanderbilt University Medical Center (Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins, 2018-06-13)
      Objectives: Increased listening effort in school-age children with hearing loss (CHL) could compromise learning and academic achievement. Identifying a sensitive behavioral measure of listening effort for this group could have both clinical and research value. This study examined the effects of signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), hearing loss, and personal amplification on two commonly-used behavioral measures of listening effort: dual-task visual response times (visual RTs) and verbal response times (verbal RTs). Design: A total of 82 children (aged 6 – 13 years) took part in this study; 37 children with normal hearing (CNH) and 45 CHL. All children performed a dual-task paradigm from which both measures of listening effort (dual-task visual RT and verbal RT) were derived. The primary task was word recognition in multi-talker babble in three individually selected SNR conditions: Easy, Moderate, and Hard. The secondary task was a visual monitoring task. Listening effort during the dual-task was quantified as the change in secondary task RT from baseline (single-task visual RT) to the dual-task condition. Listening effort based on verbal RT was quantified as the time elapsed from the onset of the auditory stimulus to the onset of the verbal response when performing the primary (word recognition) task in isolation. CHL completed the task aided and/or unaided to examine the effect of amplification on listening effort. Results: Verbal RTs were generally slower in the more challenging SNR conditions. However, there was no effect of SNR on dual-task visual RT. Overall, verbal RTs were significantly slower in CHL versus CNH. No group difference in dual-task visual RTs was found between CNH and CHL. No effect of amplification was found on either dual-task visual RTs or verbal RTs. Conclusions: This study compared dual-48 task visual RT and verbal RT measures of listening effort in the child population. Overall, verbal RTs appears more sensitive than dual-task visual RTs to the negative effects of SNR and hearing loss. The current findings extend the literature on listening effort in the pediatric population by demonstrating that, even for speech that is accurately recognized, school-age CHL show a greater processing speed decrement than their normal-hearing counterparts; a decrement that could have a negative impact on learning and academic achievement in the classroom.
    • Psychological support for patients with cancer: evidence review and suggestions for future directions

      Hulbert-Williams, Nicholas J.; Beatty, Lisa; Dhillon, Haryana M.; University of Chester; Flinders University; University of Sydney (Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins, 2018-09-31)
      Purpose of the review. Psychological distress and mental health comorbidity are common in cancer. Various therapeutic frameworks have been used for interventions to improve psychological wellbeing and quality of life in cancer patients with mixed results. This paper reviews contributions to that literature published since January 2017. Recent findings. The majority of new psychological intervention research in cancer has used Cognitive Behavioural Therapy or Mindfulness-Based Interventions. Cognitive behavioural Therapy has been considered a gold-standard intervention and recent evidence justifies continuation of this. Recent reviews call into question the validity of evidence for Mindfulness- Based Interventions. A smaller number of trials using Acceptance and Commitment Therapy, Meta-Cognitive Therapy, Dignity Therapy and Coaching have emerged, and whilst findings are promising, additional fully-powered trials are required. Weaker evidence exists for counselling, support-based, and Narrative Therapy interventions. Summary. Efficacious, timely and acceptable psychological interventions are a necessary component of comprehensive cancer care. There is some way to go before the evidence conclusively points towards which interventions work for which cancer groups and for which specific outcomes. Methodological limitations must be addressed in future trials; at the forefront remains the need for fully-powered, head-to-head comparison trials.