ArticleScientific reports2017
Musicians do not benefit from differences in fundamental frequency when listening to speech in competing speech backgrounds.
Article in Scientific reports, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
33 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- No Evidence That Music Training Benefits Speech Perception in Hearing-Impaired Listeners: A Systematic Review.Trends in hearingPooled it
- Do sung speech and background noise affect sentence repetition in dyslexia?Cognitive processing · 2026Article
- Expertise provides resilience to sound source variability in music perception.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2026Article
- Neural signatures of stream segregation from childhood to adulthood.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Large-scale multi-site study shows no association between musical training and early auditory neural sound encoding.Nature communications · 2025Article
- Attention, musicality, and familiarity shape cortical speech tracking at the musical cocktail party.Brain and language · 2025Article
- Temporal coherence effects on voice attribution in multi-speaker stream segregation.JASA express letters · 2025Article
- Mistuning perception in music is asymmetric and relies on both beats and inharmonicity.Communications psychology · 2024Article
- Exploring the role of singing, semantics, and amusia screening in speech-in-noise perception in musicians and non-musicians.Cognitive processing · 2024Article
- Auditory Electrophysiological and Perceptual Measures in Student Musicians with High Sound Exposure.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Are musical activities associated with enhanced speech perception in noise in adults? A systematic review and meta-analysis.Current research in neurobiology · 2023Review
- Domain-specific hearing-in-noise performance is associated with absolute pitch proficiency.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Do Musicians and Non-musicians Differ in Speech-on-Speech Processing?Frontiers in psychology · 2021Article
- No interaction between fundamental-frequency differences and spectral region when perceiving speech in a speech background.PloS one · 2021Article
- Effects of auditory selective attention on neural phase: individual differences and short-term training.NeuroImage · 2020Article
- Musical Training for Auditory Rehabilitation in Hearing Loss.Journal of clinical medicine · 2020Article
- Change detection in complex auditory scenes is predicted by auditory memory, pitch perception, and years of musical training.Psychological research · 2020Article
- Autodidacticism and Music: Do Self-Taught Musicians Exhibit the Same Auditory Processing Advantages as Formally Trained Musicians?Frontiers in neuroscience · 2020Article
- Musicians Show Improved Speech Segregation in Competitive, Multi-Talker Cocktail Party Scenarios.Frontiers in psychology · 2020Article
- Speech perception is similar for musicians and non-musicians across a wide range of conditions.Scientific reports · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Recent studies disagree on whether musicians have an advantage over non-musicians in understanding speech in noise. However, it has been suggested that musicians may be able to use differences in fundamental frequency (F0) to better understand target speech in the presence of interfering talkers. Here we studied a relatively large (N = 60) cohort of young adults, equally divided between non-musicians and highly trained musicians, to test whether the musicians were better able to understand speech either in noise or in a two-talker competing speech masker. The target speech and competing speech were presented with either their natural F0 contours or on a monotone F0, and the F0 difference between the target and masker was systematically varied. As expected, speech intelligibility improved with increasing F0 difference between the target and the two-talker masker for both natural and monotone speech. However, no significant intelligibility advantage was observed for musicians over non-musicians in any condition. Although F0 discrimination was significantly better for musicians than for non-musicians, it was not correlated with speech scores. Overall, the results do not support the hypothesis that musical training leads to improved speech intelligibility in complex speech or noise backgrounds.
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.