ArticleHearing research2019
Linguistic, perceptual, and cognitive factors underlying musicians' benefits in noise-degraded speech perception.
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 29 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
29 citing papers in PubMed, 68 citations in OpenAlex.
- Structural connectivity of auditory-linguistic brain networks predicts success in speech categorization and listening in noise.Neuroscience · 2026Article
- Enhanced Contour-Deviant Mismatch Negativity and Mnemonic Representations in Older Musicians.The European journal of neuroscience · 2026Article
- Neural signatures of stream segregation from childhood to adulthood.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Consistency in phonetic categorization predicts successful speech-in-noise perception.JASA express letters · 2025Article
- Attention, musicality, and familiarity shape cortical speech tracking at the musical cocktail party.Brain and language · 2025Article
- Article
- Auditory working memory mechanisms mediating the relationship between musicianship and auditory stream segregation.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
- Musicianship Modulates Cortical Effects of Attention on Processing Musical Triads.Brain sciences · 2024Article
- The impact of music training on temporal order processing in Mandarin Chinese sentence reading: Evidence from event-related potentials (ERPs).Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience · 2024Article
- Hearing in categories aids speech streaming at the "cocktail party".bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024Article
- Short- and long-term neuroplasticity interact during the perceptual learning of concurrent speech.Cerebral cortex (New York, N.Y. : 1991) · 2024Article
- The Relationship between Formal Music Training and Conflict Control: An ERP Study.Brain sciences · 2023Article
- Performance on stochastic figure-ground perception varies with individual differences in speech-in-noise recognition and working memory capacity.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2023Article
- Musical experience partially counteracts temporal speech processing deficits in putative mild cognitive impairment.Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences · 2022Article
- Familiarity of Background Music Modulates the Cortical Tracking of Target Speech at the "Cocktail Party".Brain sciences · 2022Article
- Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Combined With Listening to Preferred Music Alters Cortical Speech Processing in Older Adults.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2022Article
- Medical phenome of musicians: an investigation of health records collected on 9803 musically active individuals.Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences · 2021Article
- The Microstructural Plasticity of the Arcuate Fasciculus Undergirds Improved Speech in Noise Perception in Musicians.Cerebral cortex (New York, N.Y. : 1991) · 2021Article
- Auditory cortex is susceptible to lexical influence as revealed by informational vs. energetic masking of speech categorization.Brain research · 2021Article
- Musical Sophistication and Speech Auditory-Motor Coupling: Easy Tests for Quick Answers.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Previous studies have reported better speech-in-noise (SIN) recognition in musicians relative to nonmusicians while others have failed to observe this "musician SIN advantage." Here, we aimed to clarify equivocal findings and determine the most relevant perceptual and cognitive factors that do and do not account for musicians' benefits in SIN processing. We measured behavioral performance in musicians and nonmusicians on a battery of SIN recognition, auditory backward masking (a marker of attention), fluid intelligence (IQ), and working memory tasks. We found that musicians outperformed nonmusicians in SIN recognition but also demonstrated better performance in IQ, working memory, and attention. SIN advantages were restricted to more complex speech tasks featuring sentence-level recognition with speech-on-speech masking (i.e., QuickSIN) whereas no group differences were observed in non-speech simultaneous (noise-on-tone) masking. This suggests musicians' advantage is limited to cases where the noise interference is linguistic in nature. Correlations showed SIN scores were associated with working memory, reinforcing the importance of general cognition to degraded speech perception. Lastly, listeners' years of music training predicted auditory attention scores, working memory skills, general fluid intelligence, and SIN perception (i.e., QuickSIN scores), implying that extensive musical training enhances perceptual and cognitive skills. Overall, our results suggest (i) enhanced SIN recognition in musicians is due to improved parsing of competing linguistic signals rather than signal-in-noise extraction, per se, and (ii) cognitive factors (working memory, attention, IQ) at least partially drive musicians' SIN advantages.
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.