ArticleFrontiers in human neuroscience2017
The Contribution of Cognitive Factors to Individual Differences in Understanding Noise-Vocoded Speech in Young and Older Adults.
Article in Frontiers in human neuroscience, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Neuropsychological Assessments to Explore the Cognitive Impact of Cochlear Implants: A Scoping Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Auditory-cognitive contributions to speech-in-noise perception determined with structural equation modelling of a large sample.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- The impact of prior knowledge on perceiving vocal elements in MIDI-converted music.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
- Noise-Vocoded Sentence Recognition and the Use of Context in Older and Younger Adult Listeners.Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR · 2023Article
- Lexical Effects on the Perceived Clarity of Noise-Vocoded Speech in Younger and Older Listeners.Frontiers in psychology · 2022Article
- Age effects on cognitive functions and speech-in-noise processing: An event-related potential study with cochlear-implant users and normal-hearing listeners.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2022Article
- Speech Recognition and Listening Effort in Cochlear Implant Recipients and Normal-Hearing Listeners.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2021Article
- Neural Mechanisms Underlying the Processing of Complex Sentences: An fMRI Study.Neurobiology of language (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2020Article
- Immediate improvement of speech-in-noise perception through multisensory stimulation via an auditory to tactile sensory substitution.Restorative neurology and neuroscience · 2019Article
- Speech Processing Difficulties in Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder.Frontiers in psychology · 2019Article
- Individual Variability in Recalibrating to Spectrally Shifted Speech: Implications for Cochlear Implants.Ear and hearingArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Noise-vocoded speech is commonly used to simulate the sensation after cochlear implantation as it consists of spectrally degraded speech. High individual variability exists in learning to understand both noise-vocoded speech and speech perceived through a cochlear implant (CI). This variability is partly ascribed to differing cognitive abilities like working memory, verbal skills or attention. Although clinically highly relevant, up to now, no consensus has been achieved about which cognitive factors exactly predict the intelligibility of speech in noise-vocoded situations in healthy subjects or in patients after cochlear implantation. We aimed to establish a test battery that can be used to predict speech understanding in patients prior to receiving a CI. Young and old healthy listeners completed a noise-vocoded speech test in addition to cognitive tests tapping on verbal memory, working memory, lexicon and retrieval skills as well as cognitive flexibility and attention. Partial-least-squares analysis revealed that six variables were important to significantly predict vocoded-speech performance. These were the ability to perceive visually degraded speech tested by the Text Reception Threshold, vocabulary size assessed with the Multiple Choice Word Test, working memory gauged with the Operation Span Test, verbal learning and recall of the Verbal Learning and Retention Test and task switching abilities tested by the Comprehensive Trail-Making Test. Thus, these cognitive abilities explain individual differences in noise-vocoded speech understanding and should be considered when aiming to predict hearing-aid outcome.
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.