Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25999874›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2015

Working memory and intelligibility of hearing-aid processed speech.

Pamela E Souza, Kathryn H Arehart, Jing Shen, Melinda Anderson, James M Kates

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

31 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. The Type of Noise Influences Quality Ratings for Noisy Speech in Hearing Aid Users.Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR · 2020
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Using Cognitive Screening Tests in Audiology.American journal of audiology · 2016
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Pamela E SouzaDepartment of Communication Sciences and Disorders, Northwestern University Evanston, IL, USA ; Knowles Hearing Center, Northwestern University Evanston, IL, USA.
Kathryn H ArehartDepartment of Speech, Language and Hearing Sciences, University of Colorado at Boulder Boulder, CO, USA.
Jing ShenDepartment of Communication Sciences and Disorders, Northwestern University Evanston, IL, USA.
Melinda AndersonDepartment of Speech, Language and Hearing Sciences, University of Colorado at Boulder Boulder, CO, USA.
James M KatesDepartment of Speech, Language and Hearing Sciences, University of Colorado at Boulder Boulder, CO, USA.

Funding

Characterizing Variability in Hearing Aid Outcomes Among Older AdultsR01DC012289 · NIDCD · NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY · PI SOUZA, PAMELA E. · 2012 to 2021
$3.7M
NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC012289
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Previous work suggested that individuals with low working memory capacity may be at a disadvantage in adverse listening environments, including situations with background noise or substantial modification of the acoustic signal. This study explored the relationship between patient factors (including working memory capacity) and intelligibility and quality of modified speech for older individuals with sensorineural hearing loss. The modification was created using a combination of hearing aid processing [wide-dynamic range compression (WDRC) and frequency compression (FC)] applied to sentences in multitalker babble. The extent of signal modification was quantified via an envelope fidelity index. We also explored the contribution of components of working memory by including measures of processing speed and executive function. We hypothesized that listeners with low working memory capacity would perform more poorly than those with high working memory capacity across all situations, and would also be differentially affected by high amounts of signal modification. Results showed a significant effect of working memory capacity for speech intelligibility, and an interaction between working memory, amount of hearing loss and signal modification. Signal modification was the major predictor of quality ratings. These data add to the literature on hearing-aid processing and working memory by suggesting that the working memory-intelligibility effects may be related to aggregate signal fidelity, rather than to the specific signal manipulation. They also suggest that for individuals with low working memory capacity, sensorineural loss may be most appropriately addressed with WDRC and/or FC parameters that maintain the fidelity of the signal envelope.

Indexed as

agingcognitioncompressionhearing aidhearing lossintelligibilityquality

Identifiers

PMID25999874
PMCPMC4423473

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.