ArticleThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America2020
A test of model classes accounting for individual differences in the cocktail-party effect.
Article in The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- The interplay of uncertainty, relevance and learning influences auditory categorization.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Simultaneous relative cue reliance in speech-on-speech masking.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2023Article
- Molecular analysis of individual differences in talker search at the cocktail-party.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2022Article
- Article
- Integrative Modeling of Individual Differences Recognizing Speech in Noise by Hearing-Impaired Adults.Trends in hearingArticle
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.
Funding
Abstract
Listeners differ widely in the ability to follow the speech of a single talker in a noisy crowd-what is called the cocktail-party effect. Differences may arise for any one or a combination of factors associated with auditory sensitivity, selective attention, working memory, and decision making required for effective listening. The present study attempts to narrow the possibilities by grouping explanations into model classes based on model predictions for the types of errors that distinguish better from poorer performing listeners in a vowel segregation and talker identification task. Two model classes are considered: those for which the errors are predictably tied to the voice variation of talkers (decision weight models) and those for which the errors occur largely independently of this variation (internal noise models). Regression analyses of trial-by-trial responses, for different tasks and task demands, show overwhelmingly that the latter type of error is responsible for the performance differences among listeners. The results are inconsistent with models that attribute the performance differences to differences in the reliance listeners place on relevant voice features in this decision. The results are consistent instead with models for which largely stimulus-independent, stochastic processes cause information loss at different stages of auditory processing.
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.