ArticlePloS one2022
Speech understanding in diffuse steady noise in typically hearing and hard of hearing listeners.
Article in PloS one, 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Reference Data for a Quick Speech-in-Noise Hearing Test in the French Language.Audiology & neuro-otology · 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
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Spatial cues can facilitate segregation of target speech from maskers. However, in clinical practice, masked speech understanding is most often evaluated using co-located speech and maskers (i.e., without spatial cues). Many hearing aid centers in France are equipped with five-loudspeaker arrays, allowing masked speech understanding to be measured with spatial cues. It is unclear how hearing status may affect utilization of spatial cues to segregate speech and noise. In this study, speech reception thresholds (SRTs) for target speech in "diffuse noise" (target speech from 1 speaker, noise from the remaining 4 speakers) in 297 adult listeners across 9 Audilab hearing centers. Participants were categorized according to pure-tone-average (PTA) thresholds: typically-hearing (TH; ≤ 20 dB HL), mild hearing loss (Mild; >20 ≤ 40 dB HL), moderate hearing loss 1 (Mod-1; >40 ≤ 55 dB HL), and moderate hearing loss 2 (Mod-2; >55 ≤ 65 dB HL). All participants were tested without aided hearing. SRTs in diffuse noise were significantly correlated with PTA thresholds, age at testing, as well as word and phoneme recognition scores in quiet. Stepwise linear regression analysis showed that SRTs in diffuse noise were significantly predicted by a combination of PTA threshold and word recognition scores in quiet. SRTs were also measured in co-located and diffuse noise in 65 additional participants. SRTs were significantly lower in diffuse noise than in co-located noise only for the TH and Mild groups; masking release with diffuse noise (relative to co-located noise) was significant only for the TH group. The results are consistent with previous studies that found that hard of hearing listeners have greater difficulty using spatial cues to segregate competing speech. The data suggest that speech understanding in diffuse noise provides additional insight into difficulties that hard of hearing individuals experience in complex listening environments.
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.