ArticlePloS one2020
Auditory processing in children: Role of working memory and lexical ability in auditory closure.
Article in PloS one, 2020. 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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of auditory working memory in Bharatanatyam dancers.Journal of otology · 2022Article
- Infants recognize words spoken through opaque masks but not through clear masks.Developmental science · 2021Article
- Speech Perception in Noise Predicts Oral Narrative Comprehension in Children With Developmental Language Disorder.Frontiers in psychology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We examined the relationship between cognitive-linguistic mechanisms and auditory closure ability in children. Sixty-seven school-age children recognized isolated words and keywords in sentences that were interrupted at a rate of 2.5 Hz and 5 Hz. In essence, children were given only 50% of speech information and asked to repeat the complete word or sentence. Children's working memory capacity (WMC), attention, lexical knowledge, and retrieval from long-term memory (LTM) abilities were also measured to model their role in auditory closure ability. Overall, recognition of monosyllabic words and lexically easy multisyllabic words was significantly better at 2.5 Hz interruption rate than 5 Hz. Recognition of lexically hard multisyllabic words and keywords in sentences was better at 5 Hz relative to 2.5 Hz. Based on the best fit generalized "logistic" linear mixed effects models, there was a significant interaction between WMC and lexical difficulty of words. WMC was positively related only to recognition of lexically easy words. Lexical knowledge was found to be crucial for recognition of words and sentences, regardless of interruption rate. In addition, LTM retrieval ability was significantly associated with sentence recognition. These results suggest that lexical knowledge and the ability to retrieve information from LTM is crucial for children's speech recognition in adverse listening situations. Study findings make a compelling case for the assessment and intervention of lexical knowledge and retrieval abilities in children with listening difficulties.
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.