ArticleJournal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR2022
Maturation of Speech-in-Speech Recognition for Whispered and Voiced Speech.
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 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.
- Effects of linguistic context and noise type on speech comprehension.Frontiers in psychology · 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeSome speech recognition data suggest that children rely less on voice pitch and harmonicity to support auditory scene analysis than adults. Two experiments evaluated development of speech-in-speech recognition using voiced speech and whispered speech, which lacks the harmonic structure of voiced speech.
methodListeners were 5- to 7-year-olds and adults with normal hearing. Targets were monosyllabic words organized into three-word sets that differ in vowel content. Maskers were two-talker or one-talker streams of speech. Targets and maskers were recorded by different female talkers in both voiced and whispered speaking styles. For each masker, speech reception thresholds (SRTs) were measured in all four combinations of target and masker speech, including matched and mismatched speaking styles for the target and masker.
resultsChildren performed more poorly than adults overall. For the two-talker masker, this age effect was smaller for the whispered target and masker than for the other three conditions. Children's SRTs in this condition were predominantly positive, suggesting that they may have relied on a wholistic listening strategy rather than segregating the target from the masker. For the one-talker masker, age effects were consistent across the four conditions. Reduced informational masking for the one-talker masker could be responsible for differences in age effects for the two maskers. A benefit of mismatching the target and masker speaking style was observed for both target styles in the two-talker masker and for the voiced targets in the one-talker masker.
conclusionsThese results provide no compelling evidence that young school-age children and adults are differentially sensitive to the cues present in voiced and whispered speech. Both groups benefit from mismatches in speaking style under some conditions. These benefits could be due to a combination of reduced perceptual similarity, harmonic cancelation, and differences in energetic masking.
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.