Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35474415›Full record

ArticleAttention, perception & psychophysics2022

Revisiting the target-masker linguistic similarity hypothesis.

Violet A Brown, Naseem H Dillman-Hasso, ZhaoBin Li, Lucia Ray, Ellen Mamantov, Kristin J Van Engen, Julia F Strand

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Attention, perception & psychophysics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Preregistration: Practical Considerations for Speech, Language, and Hearing Research.Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR · 2023
    Article
  3. Review
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

7 authors.

Violet A BrownDepartment of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Washington University in St. Louis, One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO, 63130, USA. violet.brown@wustl.edu.
Naseem H Dillman-HassoCarleton College, Department of Psychology, One North College St, Northfield, MN, 55057, USA.
ZhaoBin LiCarleton College, Department of Psychology, One North College St, Northfield, MN, 55057, USA.
Lucia RayCarleton College, Department of Psychology, One North College St, Northfield, MN, 55057, USA.
Ellen MamantovCarleton College, Department of Psychology, One North College St, Northfield, MN, 55057, USA.
Kristin J Van EngenDepartment of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Washington University in St. Louis, One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO, 63130, USA.
Julia F StrandCarleton College, Department of Psychology, One North College St, Northfield, MN, 55057, USA.

Funding

Listening effort and audiovisual speech by L1 ("native") and LX ("nonnative") English speakersR15DC018114 · NIDCD · CARLETON COLLEGE · PI STRAND, JULIA F · 2019 to 2023
$841k
NIDCD NIH HHS R15 DC018114
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The linguistic similarity hypothesis states that it is more difficult to segregate target and masker speech when they are linguistically similar. For example, recognition of English target speech should be more impaired by the presence of Dutch masking speech than Mandarin masking speech because Dutch and English are more linguistically similar than Mandarin and English. Across four experiments, English target speech was consistently recognized more poorly when presented in English masking speech than in silence, speech-shaped noise, or an unintelligible masker (i.e., Dutch or Mandarin). However, we found no evidence for graded masking effects-Dutch did not impair performance more than Mandarin in any experiment, despite 650 participants being tested. This general pattern was consistent when using both a cross-modal paradigm (in which target speech was lipread and maskers were presented aurally; Experiments 1a and 1b) and an auditory-only paradigm (in which both the targets and maskers were presented aurally; Experiments 2a and 2b). These findings suggest that the linguistic similarity hypothesis should be refined to reflect the existing evidence: There is greater release from masking when the masker language differs from the target speech than when it is the same as the target speech. However, evidence that unintelligible maskers impair speech identification to a greater extent when they are more linguistically similar to the target language remains elusive.

Indexed as

Perceptual MaskingSpeech PerceptionHumansLanguageLinguisticsSpeechCross-modal maskingLinguistic similarity hypothesisMaskingSpeech identification

Identifiers

PMID35474415
PMCPMC10701341

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.