ArticleFrontiers in neuroscience2021
Effects of Spatial Speech Presentation on Listener Response Strategy for Talker-Identification.
Article in Frontiers in neuroscience, 2021. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study investigates effects of spatial auditory cues on human listeners' response strategy for identifying two alternately active talkers ("turn-taking" listening scenario). Previous research has demonstrated subjective benefits of audio spatialization with regard to speech intelligibility and talker-identification effort. So far, the deliberate activation of specific perceptual and cognitive processes by listeners to optimize their task performance remained largely unexamined. Spoken sentences selected as stimuli were either clean or degraded due to background noise or bandpass filtering. Stimuli were presented via three horizontally positioned loudspeakers: In a non-spatial mode, both talkers were presented through a central loudspeaker; in a spatial mode, each talker was presented through the central or a talker-specific lateral loudspeaker. Participants identified talkers via speeded keypresses and afterwards provided subjective ratings (speech quality, speech intelligibility, voice similarity, talker-identification effort). In the spatial mode, presentations at lateral loudspeaker locations entailed quicker behavioral responses, which were significantly slower in comparison to a talker-localization task. Under clean speech, response times globally increased in the spatial vs. non-spatial mode (across all locations); these "response time switch costs," presumably being caused by repeated switching of spatial auditory attention between different locations, diminished under degraded speech. No significant effects of spatialization on subjective ratings were found. The results suggested that when listeners could utilize task-relevant auditory cues about talker location, they continued to rely on voice recognition instead of localization of talker sound sources as primary response strategy. Besides, the presence of speech degradations may have led to increased cognitive control, which in turn compensated for incurring response time switch costs.
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.