ArticleTrends in hearing
Audiovisual Speech Recognition With a Cochlear Implant and Increased Perceptual and Cognitive Demands.
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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- How to vocode: Using channel vocoders for cochlear-implant research.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2024Article
- Improved speech intelligibility in the presence of congruent vibrotactile speech input.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Exploring neurocognitive factors and brain activation in adult cochlear implant recipients associated with speech perception outcomes-A scoping review.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2023Article
- The recognition of time-compressed speech as a function of age in listeners with cochlear implants or normal hearing.Frontiers in aging neuroscience · 2022Article
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
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
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.