Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36182296›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America2022

Auditory motion as a cue for source segregation and selection in a "cocktail party" listening environment.

Adrian Y Cho, Gerald Kidd

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 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. Article
  3. 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

2 authors.

Adrian Y ChoSpeech and Hearing Bioscience and Technology Program, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-5509-8752
Gerald KiddDepartment of Speech, Language, and Hearing Sciences, Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts 02215, USA.

Funding

CENTRAL FACTORS IN AUDITORY MASKINGR01DC004545 · NIDCD · BOSTON UNIVERSITY (CHARLES RIVER CAMPUS) · PI KIDD, GERALD, JR · 2000 to 2021
$9.0M
Top-Down Control of Selective AmplificationR01DC013286 · NIDCD · BOSTON UNIVERSITY (CHARLES RIVER CAMPUS) · PI BEST, VIRGINIA ANN, KIDD, GERALD, JR · 2014 to 2023
$6.0M
NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC004545NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC013286
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Source motion was examined as a cue for segregating concurrent speech or noise sources. In two different headphone-based tasks-motion detection (MD) and speech-on-speech masking (SI)-one source among three was designated as the target only by imposing sinusoidal variation in azimuth during the stimulus presentation. For MD, the lstener was asked which of the three concurrent sources was in motion during the trial. For SI, the listener was asked to report the words spoken by the moving speech source. MD performance improved as the amplitude of the sinusoidal motion (i.e., displacement in azimuth) increased over the range of values tested (±5° to ±30°) for both modulated noise and speech targets, with better performance found for speech. SI performance also improved as the amplitude of target motion increased. Furthermore, SI performance improved as word position progressed throughout the sentence. Performance on the MD task was correlated with performance on SI task across individual subjects. For the SI conditions tested here, these findings are consistent with the proposition that listeners first detect the moving target source, then focus attention on the target location as the target sentence unfolds.

Indexed as

Speech PerceptionAttentionAuditory PerceptionCuesHumansNoise

Identifiers

PMID36182296
PMCPMC9489258

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.