Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28464682›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America2017

Speech recognition in one- and two-talker maskers in school-age children and adults: Development of perceptual masking and glimpsing.

Emily Buss, Lori J Leibold, Heather L Porter, John H Grose

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing 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

36 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Predicting language dominance in Spanish/English bilingual adults based on relative speech-in-speech recognition scores.The international journal of bilingualism : cross-disciplinary, cross-linguistic studies of language behavior · 2024
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Maturation of Speech-in-Speech Recognition for Whispered and Voiced Speech.Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR · 2022
    Article
  15. Spatial release from masking in reverberation for school-age children.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2021
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Cognitive and Linguistic Contributions to Masked Speech Recognition in Children.Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR · 2020
    Article
  20. 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

4 authors.

Emily BussDepartment of Otolaryngology/Head and Neck Surgery, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27599, USA.
Lori J LeiboldCenter for Hearing Research, Boys Town National Research Hospital, Omaha, Nebraska 68131, USA.
Heather L PorterHearing and Speech Department, Children's Hospital Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California 90027, USA.
John H GroseDepartment of Otolaryngology/Head and Neck Surgery, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27599, USA.

Funding

SUSCEPTIBILITY TO AND RELEASE FROM MASKING IN INFANCY AND CHILDHOODR01DC011038 · NIDCD · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI LEIBOLD, LORI J. · 2011 to 2020
$4.3M
NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC011038
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Children perform more poorly than adults on a wide range of masked speech perception paradigms, but this effect is particularly pronounced when the masker itself is also composed of speech. The present study evaluated two factors that might contribute to this effect: the ability to perceptually isolate the target from masker speech, and the ability to recognize target speech based on sparse cues (glimpsing). Speech reception thresholds (SRTs) were estimated for closed-set, disyllabic word recognition in children (5-16 years) and adults in a one- or two-talker masker. Speech maskers were 60 dB sound pressure level (SPL), and they were either presented alone or in combination with a 50-dB-SPL speech-shaped noise masker. There was an age effect overall, but performance was adult-like at a younger age for the one-talker than the two-talker masker. Noise tended to elevate SRTs, particularly for older children and adults, and when summed with the one-talker masker. Removing time-frequency epochs associated with a poor target-to-masker ratio markedly improved SRTs, with larger effects for younger listeners; the age effect was not eliminated, however. Results were interpreted as indicating that development of speech-in-speech recognition is likely impacted by development of both perceptual masking and the ability recognize speech based on sparse cues.

Indexed as

Adolescent BehaviorChild BehaviorCuesPerceptual MaskingRecognition, PsychologySpeech PerceptionAcoustic StimulationAdolescentAdultAge FactorsAuditory ThresholdChildChild, PreschoolFemaleHumansMale

Identifiers

PMID28464682
PMCPMC5391283

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.