ArticleEar and hearing
Masked sentence recognition assessed at ascending target-to-masker ratios: modest effects of repeating stimuli.
Article in Ear and hearing. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development and Validation of Modified Basic English Lexicon Sentences for Use With a Pediatric Population.American journal of audiology · 2026Article
- The Effect of Diverse Linguistic Experience on Second Language-Accented English Sentence Recognition Among Monolingual and Spanish-English Bilingual Children and Adults.Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR · 2026Article
- Comparison of Two Place-Based Mapping Procedures on Masked Sentence Recognition as a Function of Electrode Array Angular Insertion Depth and Presence of Acoustic Low-Frequency Information: A Simulation Study.Audiology & neuro-otology · 2023Article
- Effect of Place-Based Versus Default Mapping Procedures on Masked Speech Recognition: Simulations of Cochlear Implant Alone and Electric-Acoustic Stimulation.American journal of audiology · 2022Article
- Does Sentence-Level Coarticulation Affect Speech Recognition in Noise or a Speech Masker?Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR · 2021Article
- Speech Understanding in Noise for Adults With Cochlear Implants: Effects of Hearing Configuration, Source Location Certainty, and Head Movement.Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR · 2018Article
- Modulation masking release using the Brazilian-Portuguese HINT: psychometric functions and the effect of speech time compression.International journal of audiology · 2015Article
- Evaluating Selective Apical Electrode Deactivation for Improving Cochlear Implant Outcomes.Trends in hearingArticle
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
Abstract
objectivesMasked sentence recognition is typically evaluated by presenting a novel stimulus on each trial. As a consequence, experiments calling for replicate estimates in multiple conditions require large corpora of stimuli. The present study evaluated the consequences of repeating sentence-plus-masker pairs at ascending target-to-masker ratios (TMRs). The hypothesis was that performance on each trial would be consistent with the cues available to the listener at the associated TMR, resulting in similar estimates of threshold and slope for procedures using novel versus repeated sentences within an ascending-TMR block of trials.
designA group of 37 normal-hearing young adults participated. Each listener was tested in the presence of one of three maskers: a multitalker babble, a speech-shaped noise, or an amplitude-modulated speech-shaped noise. There were two data collection procedures, both proceeding in blocks of trials with ascending TMRs. The novel-stimulus procedure used five lists of AzBio sentences, one presented at each of five TMRs, with a novel sentence and masker sample on each trial. The repeated-stimulus procedure used a single list of AzBio sentences, with each sentence presented at multiple TMRs, progressing from low to high; each sentence was paired with a single masker sample, such that only the TMR changed within blocks of repeated stimuli. Listeners completed one run with the novel-stimulus procedure and five runs with the repeated-stimulus procedure. The resulting values of percent correct at each TMR were fitted with a logit function to estimate threshold and psychometric function slope.
resultsThe novel- and repeated-stimulus procedures resulted in generally similar data patterns. After controlling for effects related to the order in which listeners completed the six data collection runs, mean thresholds were slightly higher (<0.5 dB) for the repeated-stimulus procedure than the novel-stimulus procedure in all three maskers. Function slopes for the multitalker babble and amplitude-modulated noise maskers were slightly shallower using the repeated-stimulus than the novel-stimulus procedure, but slopes were comparable for the speech-shaped noise. The quality of psychometric function fits was significantly better for the repeated-stimulus than the novel-stimulus procedure, even when comparing a single run of the repeated-stimulus procedure (using one list) to a run of the novel-stimulus procedure (using five lists).
conclusionsRepeating sentences at ascending TMRs is an efficient method for estimating thresholds and psychometric function slopes, both in terms of the number of sentences and the number of trials.
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.