Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34598610›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America2021

Glimpsing keywords across sentences in noise: A microstructural analysis of acoustic, lexical, and listener factors.

Daniel Fogerty, Jayne B Ahlstrom, Judy R Dubno

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 23% of its field
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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Daniel FogertyDepartment of Speech and Hearing Science, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, Illinois 61820, USA.ORCID s000000022611102X
Jayne B AhlstromDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina 29425, USA.
Judy R DubnoDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina 29425, USA.ORCID s0000000323404721
Medical University of South Carolina · USUniversity of Illinois Urbana-Champaign · US

Funding

South Carolina Clinical & Translational Research Institute (SCTR)UL1TR001450 · NCATS · MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA · PI BRADY, KATHLEEN T., FLUME, PATRICK A · 2015 to 2024
$41.1M
AUDITORY ANALYSIS AND SPEECH RECOGNITIONR01DC000184 · NIDCD · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES · PI DUBNO, JUDY R · 1989 to 2016
$5.1M
Maximizing speech recognition under adverse listening conditionsR01DC015465 · NIDCD · UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA AT COLUMBIA · PI FOGERTY, DANIEL · 2016 to 2020
$1.6M
RENOVATION TO SUPPORT SENSORY NEUROSCIENCE RESEARCHC06RR014516 · NCRR · MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA · PI RAYMOND, JOHN R · 1999 to 1999
–
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001450NCRR NIH HHS C06 RR014516NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC000184NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC015465
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study investigated how acoustic and lexical word-level factors and listener-level factors of auditory thresholds and cognitive-linguistic processing contribute to the microstructure of sentence recognition in unmodulated and speech-modulated noise. The modulation depth of the modulated masker was changed by expanding and compressing the temporal envelope to control glimpsing opportunities. Younger adults with normal hearing (YNH) and older adults with normal and impaired hearing were tested. A second group of YNH was tested under acoustically identical conditions to the hearing-impaired group, who received spectral shaping. For all of the groups, speech recognition declined and masking release increased for later keywords in the sentence, which is consistent with the word position decreases in the signal-to-noise ratio. The acoustic glimpse proportion and lexical word frequency of individual keywords predicted recognition under different noise conditions. For the older adults, better auditory thresholds and better working memory abilities facilitated sentence recognition. Vocabulary knowledge contributed more to sentence recognition for younger than for older adults. These results demonstrate that acoustic and lexical factors contribute to the recognition of individual words within a sentence, but relative contributions vary based on the noise modulation characteristics. Taken together, acoustic, lexical, and listener factors contribute to how individuals recognize keywords during sentences.

Indexed as

Speech PerceptionAcousticsAgedAuditory ThresholdHearingHumansNoise

Identifiers

PMID34598610
PMCPMC8448575
OpenAlexW3200288792

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.