Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33054620›Full record

ArticleTrends in hearing

Audiovisual Speech Recognition With a Cochlear Implant and Increased Perceptual and Cognitive Demands.

Anna R Tinnemore, Sandra Gordon-Salant, Matthew J Goupell

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. How to vocode: Using channel vocoders for cochlear-implant research.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2024
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

3 authors.

Anna R TinnemoreDepartment of Hearing and Speech Sciences, Neuroscience and Cognitive Science Program, University of Maryland at College Park, College Park, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-1191-365X
Sandra Gordon-SalantDepartment of Hearing and Speech Sciences, Neuroscience and Cognitive Science Program, University of Maryland at College Park, College Park, United States.
Matthew J GoupellDepartment of Hearing and Speech Sciences, Neuroscience and Cognitive Science Program, University of Maryland at College Park, College Park, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-2662-3057

Funding

COMPARATIVE AND EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY OF HEARINGT32DC000046 · NIDCD · UNIV OF MARYLAND, COLLEGE PARK · PI Catherine Emily Carr, Matthew J. Goupell · 1994 to 2026
$7.5M
AUDITORY TEMPORAL PROCESSES, SPEECH PERCEPTION AND AGINGR01AG009191 · NIA · UNIV OF MARYLAND, COLLEGE PARK · PI GORDON-SALANT, SANDRA M · 1991 to 2017
$2.1M
Temporal processing and speech understanding in older cochlear implanteesR01AG051603 · NIA · UNIV OF MARYLAND, COLLEGE PARK · PI GOUPELL, MATTHEW J. · 2016 to 2020
$1.9M
NIA NIH HHS R01 AG009191NIA NIH HHS R01 AG051603NIDCD NIH HHS T32 DC000046
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Speech recognition in complex environments involves focusing on the most relevant speech signal while ignoring distractions. Difficulties can arise due to the incoming signal's characteristics (e.g., accented pronunciation, background noise, distortion) or the listener's characteristics (e.g., hearing loss, advancing age, cognitive abilities). Listeners who use cochlear implants (CIs) must overcome these difficulties while listening to an impoverished version of the signals available to listeners with normal hearing (NH). In the real world, listeners often attempt tasks concurrent with, but unrelated to, speech recognition. This study sought to reveal the effects of visual distraction and performing a simultaneous visual task on audiovisual speech recognition. Two groups, those with CIs and those with NH listening to vocoded speech, were presented videos of unaccented and accented talkers with and without visual distractions, and with a secondary task. It was hypothesized that, compared with those with NH, listeners with CIs would be less influenced by visual distraction or a secondary visual task because their prolonged reliance on visual cues to aid auditory perception improves the ability to suppress irrelevant information. Results showed that visual distractions alone did not significantly decrease speech recognition performance for either group, but adding a secondary task did. Speech recognition was significantly poorer for accented compared with unaccented speech, and this difference was greater for CI listeners. These results suggest that speech recognition performance is likely more dependent on incoming signal characteristics than a difference in adaptive strategies for managing distractions between those who listen with and without a CI.

Indexed as

Cochlear ImplantationCochlear ImplantsSpeech PerceptionCognitionHumansSpeechattentioncochlear implantsperceptual maskingspeech perceptionvisual perception

Identifiers

PMID33054620
PMCPMC7575283

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.