ArticlePsychological research2022
Effects of temporal order and intentionality on reflective attention to words in noise.
Article in Psychological research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Glimpsing keywords across sentences in noise: A microstructural analysis of acoustic, lexical, and listener factors.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Speech perception in noise is a cognitively demanding process that challenges not only the auditory sensory system, but also cognitive networks involved in attention. The predictive coding theory has been influential in characterizing the influence of prior context on processing incoming auditory stimuli, with comparatively less research dedicated to "postdictive" processes and subsequent context effects on speech perception. Effects of subsequent semantic context were evaluated while manipulating the relationship of three target words presented in noise and the temporal position of targets compared to the subsequent contextual cue, demonstrating that subsequent context benefits were present regardless of whether the targets were related to each other and did not depend on the position of the target. However, participants instructed to focus on the relation between target and cue performed worse than those who did not receive this instruction, suggesting a disruption of a natural process of continuous speech recognition. We discuss these findings in relation to lexical commitment and stimulus-driven attention to short-term memory as mechanisms of subsequent context integration.
Indexed as
Identifiers
33683449What 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.