ArticleFrontiers in neuroscience2022
Measuring Speech Intelligibility and Hearing-Aid Benefit Using Everyday Conversational Sentences in Real-World Environments.
Article in Frontiers in neuroscience, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Matching laboratory and real-world listening environments with ecological momentary assessment improves prediction of speech perception.JASA express letters · 2026Article
- The Cortical Contribution to the Speech-Frequency-Following Response Is Not Modulated by Visual Information.The European journal of neuroscience · 2026Article
- A Moderated Mediation Model Linking Speech-in-Noise Exposure, Speech Perception in Noise Ability, Loneliness, and Depression.Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR · 2026Article
- Audio-visual speech-in-noise tests for evaluating speech reception thresholds: A scoping review.PloS one · 2026Article
- Development and cultural adaptation of the Saudi pediatric speech intelligibility test.Saudi medical journal · 2024Article
- The impact of face coverings on audio-visual contributions to communication with conversational speech.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2024Article
- Feasibility of an Adaptive Version of the Everyday Conversational Sentences in Noise Test.Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR · 2024Article
- Exploring Anatomy-Based Fitting for Cochlear Implantation: A Narrative Review.Journal of otolaryngology - head & neck surgery = Le Journal d'oto-rhino-laryngologie et de chirurgie cervico-facialeReview
- Advantages of Fluctuating Noise for Measuring Speech Intelligibility in Listeners With Hearing Loss.Trends in hearingArticle
- Benefit of Hearing-Aid Amplification and Signal Enhancement for Speech Reception in Complex Listening Situations.Trends in hearingArticle
- Acoustic Realism of Clinical Speech-in-Noise Testing: Parameter Ranges of Speech-Likeness, Interaural Coherence, and Interaural Differences.Trends in hearingArticle
- The Effect of Real Ear Target Deviations on SSQ and Speech Intelligibility in a Clinical Population.Trends in hearingArticle
- Identifying Hearing Difficulty Moments in Conversational Audio.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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Laboratory and clinical-based assessments of speech intelligibility must evolve to better predict real-world speech intelligibility. One way of approaching this goal is to develop speech intelligibility tasks that are more representative of everyday speech communication outside the laboratory. Here, we evaluate speech intelligibility using both a standard sentence recall task based on clear, read speech (BKB sentences), and a sentence recall task consisting of spontaneously produced speech excised from conversations which took place in realistic background noises (ECO-SiN sentences). The sentences were embedded at natural speaking levels in six realistic background noises that differed in their overall level, which resulted in a range of fixed signal-to-noise ratios. Ten young, normal hearing participants took part in the study, along with 20 older participants with a range of levels of hearing loss who were tested with and without hearing-aid amplification. We found that scores were driven by hearing loss and the characteristics of the background noise, as expected, but also strongly by the speech materials. Scores obtained with the more realistic sentences were generally lower than those obtained with the standard sentences, which reduced ceiling effects for the majority of environments/listeners (but introduced floor effects in some cases). Because ceiling and floor effects limit the potential for observing changes in performance, benefits of amplification were highly dependent on the speech materials for a given background noise and participant group. Overall, the more realistic speech task offered a better dynamic range for capturing individual performance and hearing-aid benefit across the range of real-world environments we examined.
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.