ArticleTrends in hearing
Hearing-Impaired Listeners Show Reduced Attention to High-Frequency Information in the Presence of Low-Frequency Information.
Article in Trends in hearing. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cross-frequency weights in normal and impaired hearing: Stimulus factors, stimulus dimensions, and associations with speech recognition.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2021Article
- Perceptual Learning of Noise-Vocoded Speech Under Divided Attention.Trends in hearingArticle
- Integrative Modeling of Individual Differences Recognizing Speech in Noise by Hearing-Impaired Adults.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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Many listeners with sensorineural hearing loss have uneven hearing sensitivity across frequencies. This study addressed whether this uneven hearing loss leads to a biasing of attention to different frequency regions. Normal-hearing (NH) and hearing-impaired (HI) listeners performed a pattern discrimination task at two distant center frequencies (CFs): 750 and 3500 Hz. The patterns were sequences of pure tones in which each successive tonal element was randomly selected from one of two possible frequencies surrounding a CF. The stimuli were presented at equal sensation levels to ensure equal audibility. In addition, the frequency separation of the tonal elements within a pattern was adjusted for each listener so that equal pattern discrimination performance was obtained for each CF in quiet. After these adjustments, the pattern discrimination task was performed under conditions in which independent patterns were presented at both CFs simultaneously. The listeners were instructed to attend to the low or high CF before the stimulus (assessing selective attention to frequency with instruction) or after the stimulus (divided attention, assessing inherent frequency biases). NH listeners demonstrated approximately equal performance decrements (re: quiet) between the two CFs. HI listeners demonstrated much larger performance decrements at the 3500 Hz CF than at the 750 Hz CF in combined-presentation conditions for both selective and divided attention conditions, indicating a low-frequency attentional bias that is apparently not under subject control. Surprisingly, the magnitude of this frequency bias was not related to the degree of asymmetry in thresholds at the two CFs.
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.