ArticleHearing research2019
Effect of competing noise on cortical auditory evoked potentials elicited by speech sounds in 7- to 25-year-old listeners.
Article in Hearing research, 2019. 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.
- Maturation of Cortical Auditory Evoked Potentials in Response to Tones and Noise During Adolescence and Young Adulthood.Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR · 2026Article
- Effects of stimuli and contralateral noise levels on auditory cortical potentials recorded in school-age children.PloS one · 2025Article
- Functional benefits of continuous vs. categorical listening strategies on the neural encoding and perception of noise-degraded speech.Brain research · 2024Article
- The Effect of Simultaneous Contralateral White Noise Masking on Cortical Auditory Evoked Potentials Elicited by Speech Stimuli.International archives of otorhinolaryngology · 2024Article
- Investigating Influences of Medial Olivocochlear Efferent System on Central Auditory Processing and Listening in Noise: A Behavioral and Event-Related Potential Study.Brain sciences · 2020Article
- The Impact of Trained Conditions on the Generalization of Learning Gains Following Voice Discrimination Training.Trends in 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Child listeners have particular difficulty with speech perception when competing speech noise is present; this challenge is often attributed to their immature top-down processing abilities. The purpose of this study was to determine if the effects of competing speech noise on speech-sound processing vary with age. Cortical auditory evoked potentials (CAEPs) were measured during an active speech-syllable discrimination task in 58 normal-hearing participants (age 7-25 years). Speech syllables were presented in quiet and embedded in competing speech noise (4-talker babble, +15 dB signal-to-noise ratio; SNR). While noise was expected to similarly reduce amplitude and delay latencies of N1 and P2 peaks in all listeners, it was hypothesized that effects of noise on the P3b peak would be inversely related to age due to the maturation of top-down processing abilities throughout childhood. Consistent with previous work, results showed that a +15 dB SNR reduces amplitudes and delays latencies of CAEPs for listeners of all ages, affecting speech-sound processing, delaying stimulus evaluation, and causing a reduction in behavioral speech-sound discrimination. Contrary to expectations, findings suggest that competing speech noise at a +15 dB SNR may have similar effects on various stages of speech-sound processing for listeners of all ages. Future research directions should examine how more difficult listening conditions (poorer SNRs) might affect results across ages.
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.