UNASSIGNED: In challenging listening situations, speech perception with a cochlear implant (CI) remains demanding and requires high levels of listening effort, which can lead to increased levels of listening-related fatigue. The body of literature on these topics increases as the number of CI users rises. This scoping review aims to provide an overview of the existing literature on listening effort, fatigue, and listening-related fatigue among CI users and the measurement techniques to evaluate them.
UNASSIGNED: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statements were used to conduct the scoping review. The search was performed on PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science to identify all relevant studies.
UNASSIGNED: In total, 24 studies were included and suggests that CI users experience higher levels of listening effort when compared to normal hearing controls using scales, questionnaires and electroencephalogram measurements. However, executing dual-task paradigms did not reveal any difference in listening effort between both groups. Uncertainty exists regarding the difference in listening effort between unilateral, bilateral, and bimodal CI users with bilateral hearing loss due to ambiguous results. Only five studies were eligible for the research on fatigue and listening-related fatigue. Additionally, studies using objective measurement methods were lacking.
UNASSIGNED: This scoping review highlights the necessity for additional research on these topics. Moreover, there is a need for guidelines on how listening effort, fatigue, and listening-related fatigue should be measured to allow for study results that are comparable and support optimal rehabilitation strategies.

Listening effort is a long-standing area of interest in auditory cognitive neuroscience. Prior research has used multiple techniques to shed light on the neurophysiological mechanisms underlying listening during challenging conditions. Functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) is growing in popularity as a tool for cognitive neuroscience research, and its recent advances offer many potential advantages over other neuroimaging modalities for research related to listening effort. This review introduces the basic science of fNIRS and its uses for auditory cognitive neuroscience. We also discuss its application in recently published studies on listening effort and consider future opportunities for studying effortful listening with fNIRS. After reading this article, the learner will know how fNIRS works and summarize its uses for listening effort research. The learner will also be able to apply this knowledge toward generation of future research in this area.

Listening effort (LE) describes the cognitive resources needed to process an auditory message. Our understanding of this notion remains in its infancy, hindering our ability to appreciate how it impacts individuals with hearing impairment effectively. Despite the myriad of proposed measurement tools, a validated method remains elusive. This is complicated by the seeming lack of association between tools demonstrated via correlational analyses. This review aims to systematically review the literature relating to the correlational analyses between different measures of LE. Five databases were used- PubMed, Cochrane, EMBASE, PsychINFO, and CINAHL. The quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE criteria and risk of bias with ROBINS-I/GRADE tools. Each statistically significant analysis was classified using an approved system for medical correlations. The final analyses included 48 papers, equating to 274 correlational analyses, of which 99 reached statistical significance (36.1%). Within these results, the most prevalent classifications were poor or fair. Moreover, when moderate or very strong correlations were observed, they tended to be dependent on experimental conditions. The quality of evidence was graded as very low. These results show that measures of LE are poorly correlated and supports the multi-dimensional concept of LE. The lack of association may be explained by considering where each measure operates along the effort perception pathway. Moreover, the fragility of significant correlations to specific conditions further diminishes the hope of finding an all-encompassing tool. Therefore, it may be prudent to focus on capturing the consequences of LE rather than the notion itself.

Motivation influences the amount of listening effort (LE) exerted or experienced under challenging conditions, such as in high-noise environments. This systematic review and meta-analysis is the first to quantify the effects of motivation on LE. The review was pre-registered in PROSPERO, and performed in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Eligible studies examined the influence of motivation or individual traits (related to motivation) on LE in adults. Motivational factors, coded as independent variables, included financial reward, evaluative threat, perceived competence, feedback, and individual traits. LE outcomes were categorized as subjective, behavioral, or physiological. The quality of evidence was assessed using an adaptation of the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool. Nested random-effects meta-analyses were performed to quantify and compare the influence of motivational factors across LE outcomes. After assessing 3,532 records, 48 studies met the inclusion criteria and 43 were included in the meta-analyses. Risk of bias was high, for example, many studies lacked sample size justification. Motivational factors had a small-to-medium effect (mean Cohen\'s d = 0.34, range: 0.11-0.72) on LE. When LE outcomes were considered collectively, an external manipulation of motivation (perceived competence) produced a larger mean effect size compared with individual traits. Some combinations of motivational factors and LE outcomes produced more robust effects than others, for example, evaluative threat and subjective LE outcomes. Although wide prediction intervals and high risk of bias mean that significant positive effects cannot be guaranteed, these findings provide useful guidance on the selection of motivational factors and LE outcomes for future research.

In the UK, it is estimated that a disabling hearing loss (HL) affects 1 in 6 people. HL has functional, economic and social-emotional consequences for affected individuals. Intervention for HL focuses on improving access to the auditory signal using hearing aids or cochlear implants. However, even if sounds are audible and speech is understood, individuals with HL often report increased effort when listening.Listening effort (LE) may be measured using self-reported measures such as patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). PROMs are validated questionnaires completed by patients to measure their perceptions of their own functional status and well-being. When selecting a PROM for use in research or clinical practice, it is necessary to appraise the evidence of a PROM\'s acceptability to patients, validity, responsiveness and reliability.
A systematic review of studies evaluating the measurement properties of PROMs available to measure LE in HL will be undertaken. MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsychINFO and Web of Science will be searched electronically. Reference lists of included studies, key journals and the grey literature will be hand-searched to identify further studies for inclusion. Two reviewers will independently complete title, abstract and full-text screening to determine study eligibility. Data on the characteristics of each study and each PROM will be extracted. Methodological quality of the included studies will be appraised using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments, the quality of included PROMs appraised and the credibility of the evidence assessed. A narrative synthesis will summarise extracted data.
Ethical permission is not required, as this study uses data from published research. Dissemination will be through publication in peer-reviewed journals, conference presentations and the lead author\'s doctoral dissertation. Findings may inform the selection of PROMs used to measure LE in HL.