Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32881723›Full record

Trial reportEar and hearing

Contribution of Stimulus Variability to Word Recognition in Noise Versus Two-Talker Speech for School-Age Children and Adults.

Emily Buss, Lauren Calandruccio, Jacob Oleson, Lori J Leibold

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Ear and hearing. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. The impact of tinnitus on speech perception in noise: a systematic review and meta-analysis.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2024
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Molecular analysis of individual differences in talker search at the cocktail-party.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2022
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Emily BussDepartment of Otolaryngology/Head and Neck Surgery, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.
Lauren CalandruccioDepartment of Psychological Sciences, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.
Jacob OlesonDepartment of Biostatistics, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa, USA.
Lori J LeiboldCenter for Hearing Research, Boys Town National Research Hospital, Omaha, Nebraska, USA.

Funding

A TEST OF CHILDREN'S ENGLISH/SPANISH SPEECH PERCEPTION IN NOISE OR SPEECH MASKERSR01DC015056 · NIDCD · FATHER FLANAGAN'S BOYS' HOME · PI BUSS, EMILY, LEIBOLD, LORI J. · 2016 to 2020
$3.0M
Factors influencing the behavioral assessment of hearing during infancy and childhoodR01DC014460 · NIDCD · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI BUSS, EMILY · 2015 to 2019
$1.6M
NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC014460NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC015056
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSpeech-in-speech recognition scores tend to be more variable than the speech-in-noise recognition scores, both within and across listeners. This variability could be due to listener factors, such as individual differences in audibility or susceptibility to informational masking. It could also be due to stimulus variability, with some speech-in-speech samples posing more of a challenge than others. The purpose of this experiment was to test two hypotheses: (1) that stimulus variability affects adults' word recognition in a two-talker speech masker and (2) that stimulus variability plays a smaller role in children's performance due to relatively greater contributions of listener factors.

methodsListeners were children (5 to 10 years) and adults (18 to 41 years) with normal hearing. Target speech was a corpus of 30 disyllabic words, each associated with an unambiguous illustration. Maskers were 30 samples of either two-talker speech or speech-shaped noise. The task was a four-alternative forced choice. Speech reception thresholds were measured adaptively, and those results were used to determine the signal-to-noise ratio associated with ≈65% correct for each listener and masker. Two 30-word blocks of fixed-level testing were then completed in each of the two conditions: (1) with the target-masker pairs randomly assigned prior to each block and (2) with frozen target-masker pairs.

resultsSpeech reception thresholds were lower for adults than for children, particularly for the two-talker speech masker. Listener responses in fixed-level testing were evaluated for consistency across listeners. Target sample was the best predictor of performance in the speech-shaped noise masker for both the random and frozen conditions. In contrast, both the target and masker samples affected performance in the two-talker masker. Results were qualitatively similar for children and adults, and the pattern of performance across stimulus samples was consistent, with differences in masked target audibility in both age groups.

conclusionsAlthough word recognition in speech-shaped noise differed consistently across target words, recognition in a two-talker speech masker depended on both the target and masker samples. These stimulus effects are broadly consistent with a simple model of masked target audibility. Although variability in speech-in-speech recognition is often thought to reflect differences in informational masking, the present results suggest that variability in energetic masking across stimuli can play an important role in performance.

Indexed as

SpeechSpeech PerceptionAdultChildHumansNoisePerceptual MaskingSchools

Identifiers

PMID32881723
PMCPMC7897187

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.