ArticleThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America2018
Glimpsing speech interrupted by speech-modulated noise.
Article in The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Intelligibility of interrupted and checkerboard speech with two talkers: Further evidence for four speech cue channels.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2026Article
- Auditory and cognitive contributions to recognition of degraded speech in noise: Individual differences among older adults.PloS one · 2025Article
- Access to semantic cues does not lead to perceptual restoration of interrupted speech in cochlear-implant users.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2021Article
- Speech Intelligibility Prediction using Spectro-Temporal Modulation Analysis.IEEE/ACM transactions on audio, speech, and language processing · 2021Article
- Review
- The Perceptual Contribution of Consonants and Vowels to Sentence Recognition: Effect of Dialect Variation in American English.Proceedings of the ... International Congress of Phonetic Sciences. International Congress of Phonetic Sciences · 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
Everyday environments frequently present speech in modulated noise backgrounds, such as from a competing talker. Under such conditions, temporal glimpses of speech may be preserved at favorable signal-to-noise ratios during the amplitude dips of the masker. Speech recognition is determined, in part, by these speech glimpses. However, properties of the noise when it dominates the speech may also be important. This study interrupted speech to provide either high-intensity or low-intensity speech glimpses derived from measurements of speech-on-speech masking. These interrupted intervals were deleted and subsequently filled by steady-state noise or one of four different types of noise amplitude modulated by the same or different sentence. Noise was presented at two different levels. Interruption by silence was also examined. Speech recognition was best with high-intensity glimpses and improved when the noise was modulated by missing high-intensity segments. Additional noise conditions detailed significant interactions between the noise level and glimpsed speech level. Overall, high-intensity speech segments, and the amplitude modulation (AM) of the segments, are crucial for speech recognition. Speech recognition is further influenced by the properties of the competing noise (i.e., level and AM) which interact with the glimpsed speech level. Acoustic properties of both speech-dominated and noise-dominated intervals of speech-noise mixtures determine speech recognition.
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.