Introduction Understanding how listeners execute a dual-task paradigm for listening effort would provide a benchmark for future studies and clinical implementations. Therefore, this study aimed to examine the impact of instructions on the prioritization strategy employed by individuals during a dual-task paradigm for listening effort by assessing dual-task interference. Methods 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). Dual-task interference was assessed by plotting the dual-task effect of the primary and secondary task against each other. Participants were classified based on their patterns of interference. Results The prioritizing group had more participants who achieved stable or better scores on the primary task in the dual-task condition compared to baseline. However, there was considerable variability in the prioritizing strategy employed at the individual level across listening conditions and test moments, regardless the given prioritization instructions. Conclusion Providing prioritization instructions was insufficient to ensure that an individual will mainly focus on the primary task and will stick to this strategy across listening conditions and test moments. These results raised certain reservations about the current usage of dual-task paradigms for listening effort.

The authors have declared no competing interest.

This study did not receive any funding.

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Yes

The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:

Commission on Medical Ethics, Ghent University Hospital. Reference number: ONZ-2022-0204

I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.

Yes

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Yes

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.

Yes

All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors