Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29554035›Full record

ArticleEar and hearing

Speech Recognition Abilities in Normal-Hearing Children 4 to 12 Years of Age in Stationary and Interrupted Noise.

Wiepke J A Koopmans, S Theo Goverts, Cas Smits

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ear and hearing. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing 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

26 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Establishing New Pediatric Thresholds for Digits-In-Noise Testing.Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Assessment of noise pollution and its effects on human health in industrial hub of Pakistan.Environmental science and pollution research international · 2020
    Article
  18. Extended high-frequency hearing enhances speech perception in noise.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2019
    Article
  19. 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

3 authors.

Wiepke J A KoopmansDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Section Ear and Hearing, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
S Theo GovertsDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Section Ear and Hearing, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Cas SmitsDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Section Ear and Hearing, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe main purpose of this study was to examine developmental effects for speech recognition in noise abilities for normal-hearing children in several listening conditions, relevant for daily life. Our aim was to study the auditory component in these listening abilities by using a test that was designed to minimize the dependency on nonauditory factors, the digits-in-noise (DIN) test. Secondary aims were to examine the feasibility of the DIN test for children, and to establish age-dependent normative data for diotic and dichotic listening conditions in both stationary and interrupted noise.

designIn experiment 1, a newly designed pediatric DIN (pDIN) test was compared with the standard DIN test. Major differences with the DIN test are that the pDIN test uses 79% correct instead of 50% correct as a target point, single digits (except 0) instead of triplets, and animations in the test procedure. In this experiment, 43 normal-hearing subjects between 4 and 12 years of age and 10 adult subjects participated. The authors measured the monaural speech reception threshold for both DIN test and pDIN test using headphones. Experiment 2 used the standard DIN test to measure speech reception thresholds in noise in 112 normal-hearing children between 4 and 12 years of age and 33 adults. The DIN test was applied using headphones in stationary and interrupted noise, and in diotic and dichotic conditions, to study also binaural unmasking and the benefit of listening in the gaps.

resultsMost children could reliably do both pDIN test and DIN test, and measurement errors for the pDIN test were comparable between children and adults. There was no significant difference between the score for the pDIN test and that of the DIN test. Speech recognition scores increase with age for all conditions tested, and performance is adult-like by 10 to 12 years of age in stationary noise but not interrupted noise. The youngest, 4-year-old children have speech reception thresholds 3 to 7 dB less favorable than adults, depending on test conditions. The authors found significant age effects on binaural unmasking and fluctuating masker benefit, even after correction for the lower baseline speech reception threshold of adults in stationary noise.

conclusionsSpeech recognition in noise abilities develop well into adolescence, and young children need a more favorable signal-to-noise ratio than adults for all listening conditions. Speech recognition abilities in children in stationary and interrupted noise can accurately and reliably be tested using the DIN test. A pediatric version of the test was shown to be unnecessary. Normative data were established for the DIN test in stationary and fluctuating maskers, and in diotic and dichotic conditions. The DIN test can thus be used to test speech recognition abilities for normal-hearing children from the age of 4 years and older.

Indexed as

Hearing TestsNoiseSpeech PerceptionAcoustic StimulationAdultAge FactorsChildChild, PreschoolFeasibility StudiesFemaleHumansMaleReference ValuesSpeech Reception Threshold Test

Identifiers

PMID29554035
PMCPMC7664447

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.