ArticleJournal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR2017
The Downside of Greater Lexical Influences: Selectively Poorer Speech Perception in Noise.
Article in Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Impact of depression on speech perception in noise.PloS one · 2019Trial
- Phonetic stability predicts individual differences in acoustic-phonetic cue weighting.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2026Article
- Arabic consonant length perception depends on the relative speech rate of the distal context.PloS one · 2024Article
- Continuous dynamics in behavior reveal interactions between perceptual warping in categorization and speech-in-noise perception.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2023Article
- Auditory cortex is susceptible to lexical influence as revealed by informational vs. energetic masking of speech categorization.Brain research · 2021Article
- Lexical Influences on Categorical Speech Perception Are Driven by a Temporoparietal Circuit.Journal of cognitive neuroscience · 2021Article
- Individual Differences in Lexical Contributions to Speech Perception.Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR · 2021Article
- Article
- 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose: Although lexical information influences phoneme perception, the extent to which reliance on lexical information enhances speech processing in challenging listening environments is unclear. We examined the extent to which individual differences in lexical influences on phonemic processing impact speech processing in maskers containing varying degrees of linguistic information (2-talker babble or pink noise). Method: Twenty-nine monolingual English speakers were instructed to ignore the lexical status of spoken syllables (e.g., gift vs. kift) and to only categorize the initial phonemes (/g/ vs. /k/). The same participants then performed speech recognition tasks in the presence of 2-talker babble or pink noise in audio-only and audiovisual conditions. Results: Individuals who demonstrated greater lexical influences on phonemic processing experienced greater speech processing difficulties in 2-talker babble than in pink noise. These selective difficulties were present across audio-only and audiovisual conditions. Conclusion: Individuals with greater reliance on lexical processes during speech perception exhibit impaired speech recognition in listening conditions in which competing talkers introduce audible linguistic interferences. Future studies should examine the locus of lexical influences/interferences on phonemic processing and speech-in-speech processing.
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.