ArticleAmerican journal of speech-language pathology2020
Variability of Electrolaryngeal Speech Intelligibility in Multitalker Babble.
Article in American journal of speech-language pathology, 2020. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Noninvasive Speech Restoration After Total Laryngectomy Using Surface Electromyography: Pilot Study.Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology · 2026Article
- An acoustic study of Cantonese alaryngeal speech in different speaking conditions.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2023Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this study was to report the variability of electrolarynx (EL) users' speech intelligibility in quiet and in multitalker babble. Method Ten EL users (five Servox® Digital, five TruTone™) who were at least 2 years postlaryngectomy provided recordings of five sentences from the 1965 Revised List of Phonetically Balanced Sentences. Recordings were judged by two groups of naïve listeners in quiet and in the presence of multitalker babble. Fifteen listeners orthographically transcribed a total of 750 sentences containing 3,750 key words in quiet, and another 15 listeners orthographically transcribed the same sentences mixed with multitalker babble. Results Significant differences in speech intelligibility were observed between listening conditions; 17.9% more key words were correctly identified in quiet compared to multitalker babble. Significant differences in fundamental frequency (F
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.