ArticleEar and hearing
Masked Sentence Recognition in Children, Young Adults, and Older Adults: Age-Dependent Effects of Semantic Context and Masker Type.
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 17 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
17 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development and Validation of Modified Basic English Lexicon Sentences for Use With a Pediatric Population.American journal of audiology · 2026Article
- The Effect of Diverse Linguistic Experience on Second Language-Accented English Sentence Recognition Among Monolingual and Spanish-English Bilingual Children and Adults.Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR · 2026Article
- Improvements in Perceived Abilities and Speech Recognition in Quiet and Noise for Older Adults With Single-sided Deafness or Asymmetric Hearing Loss: A Multi-center Investigation.Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology · 2026Article
- Children's use of spatial and visual cues for release from perceptual masking.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2024Article
- The role of long-term target and masker talker familiarity in children's speech-in-speech recognition.Frontiers in psychology · 2024Article
- Differential benefits of unmasking extended high-frequency content of target or background speech.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2023Article
- Strength of target source segregation cues affects the outcome of speech-on-speech masking experiments.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2023Article
- Are musical activities associated with enhanced speech perception in noise in adults? A systematic review and meta-analysis.Current research in neurobiology · 2023Review
- Can Closed-Set Word Recognition Differentially Assess Vowel and Consonant Perception for School-Age Children With and Without Hearing Loss?Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR · 2022Article
- Remote-Microphone Benefit in Noise and Reverberation for Children Who are Hard of Hearing.Journal of the American Academy of Audiology · 2022Article
- Speech Understanding in Modulated Noise and Speech Maskers as a Function of Cognitive Status in Older Adults.American journal of audiology · 2021Article
- Comparing the Speech Perception of Cochlear Implant Users with Three Different Finnish Speech Intelligibility Tests in Noise.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Article
- Spatial Release From Masking in Pediatric Cochlear Implant Recipients With Single-Sided Deafness.American journal of audiology · 2021Article
- Cognitive and Linguistic Contributions to Masked Speech Recognition in Children.Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR · 2020Article
- Psychometric function slope for speech-in-noise and speech-in-speech: Effects of development and aging.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2019Article
- Article
- Binaural Frequency Modulation Detection in School-Age Children, Young Adults, and Older Adults: Effects of Interaural Modulator Phase.Ear and hearingArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesMasked speech recognition in normal-hearing listeners depends in part on masker type and semantic context of the target. Children and older adults are more susceptible to masking than young adults, particularly when the masker is speech. Semantic context has been shown to facilitate noise-masked sentence recognition in all age groups, but it is not known whether age affects a listener's ability to use context with a speech masker. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the effect of masker type and semantic context of the target as a function of listener age.
designListeners were children (5 to 16 years), young adults (19 to 30 years), and older adults (67 to 81 years), all with normal or near-normal hearing. Maskers were either speech-shaped noise or two-talker speech, and targets were either semantically correct (high context) sentences or semantically anomalous (low context) sentences.
resultsAs predicted, speech reception thresholds were lower for young adults than either children or older adults. Age effects were larger for the two-talker masker than the speech-shaped noise masker, and the effect of masker type was larger in children than older adults. Performance tended to be better for targets with high than low semantic context, but this benefit depended on age group and masker type. In contrast to adults, children benefitted less from context in the two-talker speech masker than the speech-shaped noise masker. Context effects were small compared with differences across age and masker type.
conclusionsDifferent effects of masker type and target context are observed at different points across the lifespan. While the two-talker masker is particularly challenging for children and older adults, the speech masker may limit the use of semantic context in children but not adults.
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.