Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27059627›Full record

ArticleTrends in hearing2016

Informational Masking in Normal-Hearing and Hearing-Impaired Listeners Measured in a Nonspeech Pattern Identification Task.

Elin Roverud, Virginia Best, Christine R Mason, Jayaganesh Swaminathan, Gerald Kidd

Open access · goldAbstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Trends in hearing, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 35% of its field
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Effects of hearing loss on maintaining and switching attention.Acta acustica united with acustica : the journal of the European Acoustics Association (EEIG) · 2018
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Elin RoverudBoston University, MA, USA emroverud@gmail.com.
Virginia BestBoston University, MA, USA.
Christine R MasonBoston University, MA, USA.
Jayaganesh SwaminathanBoston University, MA, USA.
Gerald KiddBoston University, MA, USA.
Boston University · US

Funding

CENTRAL FACTORS IN AUDITORY MASKINGR01DC004545 · NIDCD · BOSTON UNIVERSITY (CHARLES RIVER CAMPUS) · PI KIDD, GERALD, JR · 2000 to 2021
$9.0M
Sound-Field Laboratory CoreP30DC004663 · NIDCD · BOSTON UNIVERSITY (CHARLES RIVER CAMPUS) · PI KIDD, GERALD, JR · 2000 to 2015
$5.8M
NIDCD NIH HHS P30 DC004663NIDCD NIH HHS P30-DC04663NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC004545NIDCD NIH HHS R01DC04545
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Individuals with sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL) often experience more difficulty with listening in multisource environments than do normal-hearing (NH) listeners. While the peripheral effects of sensorineural hearing loss certainly contribute to this difficulty, differences in central processing of auditory information may also contribute. To explore this issue, it is important to account for peripheral differences between NH and these hearing-impaired (HI) listeners so that central effects in multisource listening can be examined. In the present study, NH and HI listeners performed a tonal pattern identification task at two distant center frequencies (CFs), 850 and 3500 Hz. In an attempt to control for differences in the peripheral representations of the stimuli, the patterns were presented at the same sensation level (15 dB SL), and the frequency deviation of the tones comprising the patterns was adjusted to obtain equal quiet pattern identification performance across all listeners at both CFs. Tonal sequences were then presented at both CFs simultaneously (informational masking conditions), and listeners were asked either to selectively attend to a source (CF) or to divide attention between CFs and identify the pattern at a CF designated after each trial. There were large differences between groups in the frequency deviations necessary to perform the pattern identification task. After compensating for these differences, there were small differences between NH and HI listeners in the informational masking conditions. HI listeners showed slightly greater performance asymmetry between the low and high CFs than did NH listeners, possibly due to central differences in frequency weighting between groups.

Indexed as

Pattern Recognition, PhysiologicalPerceptual MaskingSpeech PerceptionSurveys and QuestionnairesAcoustic StimulationAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAudiometryCase-Control StudiesDisability EvaluationFemaleHearing AidsHearing DisordersHumansMaleinformational maskingsensorineural hearing loss

Identifiers

PMID27059627
PMCPMC4871212
OpenAlexW2320713397

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.