ArticleJournal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR2022
Speech Recognition in Noise Performance Measured Remotely Versus In-Laboratory From Older and Younger Listeners.
Article in Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- The role of socio-economic and lifestyle factors in hearing function in middle-aged adults.PloS one · 2026Article
- Older adults' recognition of medical terminology in hospital noise.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2024Article
- Recognition of Speech With Dynamic Pitch Manipulation in Noise: Effects of Manipulation Methods.Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR · 2024Article
- Comparing online versus laboratory measures of speech perception in older children and adolescents.PloS one · 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThis study examined the performance difference between remote and in-laboratory test modalities with a speech recognition in noise task in older and younger adults.
methodFour groups of participants (younger remote, younger in-laboratory, older remote, and older in-laboratory) were tested on a speech recognition in noise protocol with 72 sentences.
resultsWhile the younger remote group performed more poorly than the younger in-laboratory group, older participants' performance was comparable between the two modality groups, particularly in the easy to moderately difficult conditions. These results persisted after controlling for demographic variables (e.g., age, gender, and education).
conclusionWhile these findings generally support the feasibility of remote data collection with older participants for research on speech perception, they also suggest that technological proficiency is an important factor that affects performance on remote testing in the aging population.
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.