ArticleFrontiers in psychology2014
Comparison of informational vs. energetic masking effects on speechreading performance.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Impaired Performance in Noise: Disentangling Listening Effort from the Irrelevant Speech Effect.Collabra. Psychology · 2025Article
- Revisiting the target-masker linguistic similarity hypothesis.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2022Article
- Efficacy of the Digit-in-Noise Test: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of audiology & otology · 2022Article
- Processing of Degraded Speech in Brain Disorders.Brain sciences · 2021Review
- Extending the study of visual attention to a multisensory world (Charles W. Eriksen Special Issue).Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2021Review
- Auditory Pattern Representations Under Conditions of Uncertainty-An ERP Study.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2021Article
- What Can Computational Models Learn From Human Selective Attention? A Review From an Audiovisual Unimodal and Crossmodal Perspective.Frontiers in integrative neuroscience · 2020Review
- The effects of auditory spatial training on informational masking release in elderly listeners: a study protocol for a randomized clinical trial.F1000Research · 2019Article
- Editorial: Using Noise to Characterize Vision.Frontiers in psychology · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The effects of two types of auditory distracters (steady-state noise vs. four-talker babble) on visual-only speechreading accuracy were tested against a baseline (silence) in 23 participants with above-average speechreading ability. Their task was to speechread high frequency Swedish words. They were asked to rate their own performance and effort, and report how distracting each type of auditory distracter was. Only four-talker babble impeded speechreading accuracy. This suggests competition for phonological processing, since the four-talker babble demands phonological processing, which is also required for the speechreading task. Better accuracy was associated with lower self-rated effort in silence; no other correlations were found.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.