Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30334835›Full record

ArticleEar and hearing

Developmental Effects in Children's Ability to Benefit From F0 Differences Between Target and Masker Speech.

Mary M Flaherty, Emily Buss, Lori J Leibold

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 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing 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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Maturation of Speech-in-Speech Recognition for Whispered and Voiced Speech.Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR · 2022
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Infants' use of isolated and combined temporal cues in speech sound segregation.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2020
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. 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.

Mary M FlahertyDepartment of Speech and Hearing Science, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, Illinois, USA.
Emily BussDepartment of Otolaryngology/Head and Neck Surgery, School of Medicine, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.
Lori J LeiboldCenter for Hearing Research, Boys Town National Research Hospital, Omaha, Nebraska, USA.

Funding

The Impact of Mild Hearing Loss on Auditory Perception in Complex EnvironmentsP20GM109023 · NIGMS · FATHER FLANAGAN'S BOYS' HOME · PI CHATTERJEE, MONITA · 2014 to 2023
$23.4M
TRAINING IN SPEECH, HEARING, AND SENSORY COMMUNICATIONST32DC000012 · NIDCD · TRUSTEES OF INDIANA UNIVERSITY · PI PISONI, DAVID B · 1988 to 2013
$7.7M
RESEARCH IN HUMAN COMMUNICATION AND ITS DISORDERST32DC000013 · NIDCD · FATHER FLANAGAN'S BOYS'HOME · PI Ryan W. McCreery · 1989 to 2026
$4.5M
SUSCEPTIBILITY TO AND RELEASE FROM MASKING IN INFANCY AND CHILDHOODR01DC011038 · NIDCD · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI LEIBOLD, LORI J. · 2011 to 2020
$4.3M
NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC011038NIDCD NIH HHS T32 DC000012NIDCD NIH HHS T32 DC000013NIGMS NIH HHS P20 GM109023
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe objectives of this study were to (1) evaluate the extent to which school-age children benefit from fundamental frequency (F0) differences between target words and competing two-talker speech, and (2) assess whether this benefit changes with age. It was predicted that while children would be more susceptible to speech-in-speech masking compared to adults, they would benefit from differences in F0 between target and masker speech. A second experiment was conducted to evaluate the relationship between frequency discrimination thresholds and the ability to benefit from target/masker differences in F0.

designListeners were children (5 to 15 years) and adults (20 to 36 years) with normal hearing. In the first experiment, speech reception thresholds (SRTs) for disyllabic words were measured in a continuous, 60-dB SPL two-talker speech masker. The same male talker produced both the target and masker speech (average F0 = 120 Hz). The level of the target words was adaptively varied to estimate the level associated with 71% correct identification. The procedure was a four-alternative forced-choice with a picture-pointing response. Target words either had the same mean F0 as the masker or it was shifted up by 3, 6, or 9 semitones. To determine the benefit of target/masker F0 separation on word recognition, masking release was computed by subtracting thresholds in each shifted-F0 condition from the threshold in the unshifted-F0 condition. In the second experiment, frequency discrimination thresholds were collected for a subset of listeners to determine whether sensitivity to F0 differences would be predictive of SRTs. The standard was the syllable /ba/ with an F0 of 250 Hz; the target stimuli had a higher F0. Discrimination thresholds were measured using a three-alternative, three-interval forced choice procedure.

resultsYounger children (5 to 12 years) had significantly poorer SRTs than older children (13 to 15 years) and adults in the unshifted-F0 condition. The benefit of F0 separations generally increased with increasing child age and magnitude of target/masker F0 separation. For 5- to 7-year-olds, there was a small benefit of F0 separation in the 9-semitone condition only. For 8- to 12-year-olds, there was a benefit from both 6- and 9-semitone separations, but to a lesser degree than what was observed for older children (13 to 15 years) and adults, who showed a substantial benefit in the 6- and 9-semitone conditions. Examination of individual data found that children younger than 7 years of age did not benefit from any of the F0 separations tested. Results for the frequency discrimination task indicated that, while there was a trend for improved thresholds with increasing age, these thresholds were not predictive of the ability to use F0 differences in the speech-in-speech recognition task after controlling for age.

conclusionsThe overall pattern of results suggests that children's ability to benefit from F0 differences in speech-in-speech recognition follows a prolonged developmental trajectory. Younger children are less able to capitalize on differences in F0 between target and masker speech. The extent to which individual children benefitted from target/masker F0 differences was not associated with their frequency discrimination thresholds.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultChildChild DevelopmentChild, PreschoolFemaleHealthy VolunteersHumansMalePerceptual MaskingPitch DiscriminationSpeech PerceptionSpeech Reception Threshold TestYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID30334835
PMCPMC6467703

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.