Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34240010›Full record

ArticleAuditory perception & cognition2020

Recall of Speech is Impaired by Subsequent Masking Noise: A Replication of Experiment 2.

Claire Guang, Emmett Lefkowitz, Naseem Dillman-Hasso, Violet A Brown, Julia F Strand

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Auditory perception & cognition, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Claire GuangCarleton College, Department of Psychology.
Emmett LefkowitzCarleton College, Department of Psychology.
Naseem Dillman-HassoCarleton College, Department of Psychology.
Violet A BrownWashington University in St. Louis, Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences.
Julia F StrandCarleton College, Department of Psychology.

Funding

Listening effort and audiovisual speech by L1 ("native") and LX ("nonnative") English speakersR15DC018114 · NIDCD · CARLETON COLLEGE · PI STRAND, JULIA F · 2019 to 2023
$841k
NIDCD NIH HHS R15 DC018114
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe presence of masking noise can impair speech intelligibility and increase the attentional and cognitive resources necessary to understand speech. The first study to demonstrate the negative cognitive effects of noisy speech found that participants had poorer recall for aurally-presented digits early in a list when later digits were presented in noise relative to quiet (Rabbitt, 1968). However, despite being cited nearly 500 times and providing the foundation for a wealth of subsequent research on the topic, the original study has never been directly replicated.

methodsThis study replicated Rabbitt (1968) with a large online sample and tested its robustness to a variety of analytical and scoring techniques.

resultsWe replicated Rabbitt's key finding that listening to speech in noise impairs recall for items that came earlier in the list. The results were consistent when we used the original analytical technique (an ANOVA) and a more powerful analytical technique (generalized linear mixed effects models) that was not available when the original paper was published. DISCUSSION: These findings support the claim that effortful listening can interfere with encoding or rehearsal of previously presented information.

Indexed as

listening effortrecallreplicationspoken word recognition

Identifiers

PMID34240010
PMCPMC8262135

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.