Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28586824›Full record

ArticleJournal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR2017

The Downside of Greater Lexical Influences: Selectively Poorer Speech Perception in Noise.

Boji P W Lam, Zilong Xie, Rachel Tessmer, Bharath Chandrasekaran

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Individual Differences in Lexical Contributions to Speech Perception.Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR · 2021
    Article
  8. Article
  9. 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.

Boji P W LamDepartment of Communication Sciences & Disorders, Moody College of Communication, The University of Texas at Austin.
Zilong XieDepartment of Communication Sciences & Disorders, Moody College of Communication, The University of Texas at Austin.
Rachel TessmerDepartment of Communication Sciences & Disorders, Moody College of Communication, The University of Texas at Austin.
Bharath ChandrasekaranDepartment of Communication Sciences & Disorders, Moody College of Communication, The University of Texas at AustinDepartment of Psychology, College of Liberal Arts, The University of Texas at AustinInstitute for Mental Health Research, College of Liberal Arts, The University of Texas at AustinDepartment of Linguistics, College of Liberal Arts, The University of Texas at AustinInstitute for Neuroscience, The University of Texas at Austin.

Funding

Supplement to cortical contributions to frequency-following response generation and modulationR01DC013315 · NIDCD · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN · PI ABEL, TAYLOR JOHN, CHANDRASEKARAN, BHARATH · 2014 to 2025
$5.5M
NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC013315
6 · The paper itself

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

NoisePhoneticsPsycholinguisticsSpeech PerceptionAdolescentAdultFemaleHumansLinear ModelsMalePattern Recognition, PhysiologicalPsychological TestsRecognition, PsychologySemanticsYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID28586824
PMCPMC5544416

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.