ArticleBrain sciences2021
Effects of Noise and Serial Position on Free Recall of Spoken Words and Pupil Dilation during Encoding in Normal-Hearing Adults.
Article in Brain sciences, 2021. 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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Listen Carefully protocol: an exploratory case-control study of the association between listening effort and cognitive function.BMJ open · 2022Article
- Special Issue: Neural Bases of Cognitive Processing.Brain sciences · 2021Article
- Recall of Reverberant Speech in Quiet and Four-Talker Babble Noise.Brain sciences · 2021Article
- Quantifying the Effect of Noise on Cognitive Processes: A Review of Psychophysiological Correlates of Workload.Noise & healthReview
- Time-specific Components of Pupil Responses Reveal Alternations in Effort Allocation Caused by Memory Task Demands During Speech Identification in Noise.Trends in hearingReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
This preliminary study assessed the effects of noise and stimulus presentation order on recall of spoken words and recorded pupil sizes while normal-hearing listeners were trying to encode a series of words for a subsequent recall task. In three listening conditions (stationary noise in Experiment 1; quiet versus four-talker babble in Experiment 2), participants were assigned to remember as many words as possible to recall them in any order after each list of seven sentences. In the two noise conditions, lists of sentences fixed at 65 dB SPL were presented at an easily audible level via a loudspeaker. Reading span (RS) scores were used as a grouping variable, based on a median split. The primacy effect was present apart from the noise interference, and the high-RS group significantly outperformed the low-RS group at free recall measured in the quiet and four-talker babble noise conditions. RS scores were positively correlated with free-recall scores. In both quiet and four-talker babble noise conditions, sentence baselines after correction to the initial stimulus baseline increased significantly with increasing memory load. Larger sentence baselines but smaller peak pupil dilations seemed to be associated with noise interruption. The analysis method of pupil dilation used in this study is likely to provide a more thorough understanding of how listeners respond to a later recall task in comparison with previously used methods. Further studies are needed to confirm the applicability of our method in people with impaired hearing using multiple repetitions to estimate the allocation of relevant cognitive resources.
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.