Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35368279›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in neuroscience2022

Measuring Speech Intelligibility and Hearing-Aid Benefit Using Everyday Conversational Sentences in Real-World Environments.

Kelly Miles, Timothy Beechey, Virginia Best, Jörg Buchholz

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Feasibility of an Adaptive Version of the Everyday Conversational Sentences in Noise Test.Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR · 2024
    Article
  8. 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-faciale
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

4 authors.

Kelly MilesECHO Laboratory, Department of Linguistics, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Timothy BeecheyHearing Sciences - Scottish Section, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Glasgow, United Kingdom.
Virginia BestDepartment of Speech, Language and Hearing Sciences, Boston University, Boston, MA, United States.
Jörg BuchholzECHO Laboratory, Department of Linguistics, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia.

Funding

Spatial Hearing in Speech MixturesR01DC015760 · NIDCD · BOSTON UNIVERSITY (CHARLES RIVER CAMPUS) · PI Virginia Ann Best · 2017 to 2026
$3.6M
NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC015760
6 · The paper itself

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

clinical assessment developmentECO-SiNhearing aid benefitrealistic speechspeech in noisespeech intelligibility

Identifiers

PMID35368279
PMCPMC8970270

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.