ArticleClinical interventions in aging2018
Categorization of sentence recognition for older adults under noisy and time-altered conditions.
Article in Clinical interventions in aging, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Histopathological change of age-related hearing loss in female advance-aged CBA/CaJ mice.PloS one · 2025Article
- Speech Perception and Gap Detection Performance of Single-Sided Deafness under Noisy Conditions.Journal of audiology & otology · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeWhile evaluating the speech recognition ability of older adults, the present study aimed to analyze their error types in parts of speech and find error patterns under various conditions of background noise level and speed of speech.
methodsTwenty older adults with normal hearing for their age (NHiA) and 20 older adults with sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL) participated. Their cognitive function was screened as within the normal range (mini-mental state examination scores >25). The SNHL listeners were divided into high performers (SNHL-H; n=12) and low performers (SNHL-L; n=8), based on their achieving word recognition scores above or below 70%, respectively. A sentence recognition test was conducted at four levels of signal-to-noise ratio (SNR; eg, no noise, +6, +3, 0 dB) and four conditions of time alteration (eg, 30% and 15% of compression and expansion) at the most comfortable level for each participant.
resultsAs expected, the three groups showed that the error percentage increased in sentence recognition as either the SNR decreased or the speech rate became faster. Interestingly, a larger performance difference was found between the SNHL-H and SNHL-L groups in the condition of time alteration than in that of background noise. Among the parts of speech, nouns presented the highest error scores for all participants regardless of degree of listening difficulty. The noun errors of the three groups mainly consisted of no response and fail patterns, but substitution and omission were identified as the third pattern of noun error for background noise and fast speech, respectively.
conclusionDeterioration of speech recognition from the hearing threshold and supra-threshold auditory processing was seen in the elderly in difficult listening environments such as background noise and time alteration. Although different group performance ran across the eight experimental conditions, the robustness of noun errors and the error patterns were very similar, which might be extended to a possible clinical application of aural rehabilitation for the elderly population.
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.