ArticleTrends in hearing
The Listener Effect in Multitalker Speech Segregation and Talker Identification.
Article in Trends in hearing. 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.
- Simultaneous relative cue reliance in speech-on-speech masking.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2023Article
- Cues to reduce modulation informational 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
- The Effects of Uncertainty in Level on Speech-on-Speech Masking.Trends in hearingArticle
- 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Over six decades ago, Cherry (1953) drew attention to what he called the "cocktail-party problem"; the challenge of segregating the speech of one talker from others speaking at the same time. The problem has been actively researched ever since but for all this time one observation has eluded explanation. It is the wide variation in performance of individual listeners. That variation was replicated here for four major experimental factors known to impact performance: differences in task (talker segregation vs. identification), differences in the voice features of talkers (pitch vs. location), differences in the voice similarity and uncertainty of talkers (informational masking), and the presence or absence of linguistic cues. The effect of these factors on the segregation of naturally spoken sentences and synthesized vowels was largely eliminated in psychometric functions relating the performance of individual listeners to that of an ideal observer,
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.