ArticleThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America2021
Accuracy and cue use in word segmentation for cochlear-implant listeners and normal-hearing listeners presented vocoded speech.
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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Improved tactile speech perception and noise robustness using audio-to-tactile sensory substitution with amplitude envelope expansion.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Improved tactile speech perception using audio-to-tactile sensory substitution with formant frequency focusing.Scientific reports · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Cochlear-implant (CI) listeners experience signal degradation, which leads to poorer speech perception than normal-hearing (NH) listeners. In the present study, difficulty with word segmentation, the process of perceptually parsing the speech stream into separate words, is considered as a possible contributor to this decrease in performance. CI listeners were compared to a group of NH listeners (presented with unprocessed speech and eight-channel noise-vocoded speech) in their ability to segment phrases with word segmentation ambiguities (e.g., "an iceman" vs "a nice man"). The results showed that CI listeners and NH listeners were worse at segmenting words when hearing processed speech than NH listeners were when presented with unprocessed speech. When viewed at a broad level, all of the groups used cues to word segmentation in similar ways. Detailed analyses, however, indicated that the two processed speech groups weighted top-down knowledge cues to word boundaries more and weighted acoustic cues to word boundaries less relative to NH listeners presented with unprocessed speech.
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.