ArticleThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America2016
Factors responsible for remote-frequency masking in children and adults.
Article in The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Speech-in-Speech Recognition and Spatially Selective Attention in Children and Adults.Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR · 2021Article
- Amplitude modulation detection and modulation masking in school-age children and adults.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2019Article
- The Evolution of Statistical Methods in Speech, Language, and Hearing Sciences.Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR · 2019Review
- Speech recognition for school-age children and adults tested in multi-tone vs multi-noise-band maskers.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2018Article
- The Effect of Remote Masking on the Reception of Speech by Young School-Age Children.Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR · 2018Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Susceptibility to remote-frequency masking in children and adults was evaluated with respect to three stimulus features: (1) masker bandwidth, (2) spectral separation of the signal and masker, and (3) gated versus continuous masker presentation. Listeners were 4- to 6-year-olds, 7- to 10-year-olds, and adults. Detection thresholds for a 500-ms, 2000-Hz signal were estimated in quiet or presented with a band of noise in one of four frequency regions: 425-500 Hz, 4000-4075 Hz, 8000-8075 Hz, or 4000-10 000 Hz. In experiment 1, maskers were gated on in each 500-ms interval of a three-interval, forced-choice adaptive procedure. Masking was observed for all ages in all maskers, but the greatest masking was observed for the 4000-4075 Hz masker. These findings suggest that signal/masker spectral proximity plays an important role in remote-frequency masking, even when peripheral excitation associated with the signal and masker does not overlap. Younger children tended to have more masking than older children or adults, consistent with a reduced ability to segregate simultaneous sounds and/or listen in a frequency-selective manner. In experiment 2, detection thresholds were estimated in the same noises, but maskers were presented continuously. Masking was reduced for all ages relative to gated conditions, suggesting improved segregation and/or frequency-selective listening.
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.