ArticleTrends in hearing
Comparing Clinically Applicable Behavioral and Electrophysiological Measures of Speech Detection, Discrimination, and Comprehension.
Article in Trends in hearing. 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- From beeps to streets: unveiling sensory input and relevance across auditory contexts.Frontiers in neuroergonomics · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Effective communication requires good speech perception abilities. Speech perception can be assessed with behavioral and electrophysiological methods. Relating these two types of measures to each other can provide a basis for new clinical tests. In audiological practice, speech detection and discrimination are routinely assessed, whereas comprehension-related aspects are ignored. The current study compared behavioral and electrophysiological measures of speech detection, discrimination, and comprehension. Thirty young normal-hearing native Danish speakers participated. All measurements were carried out with digits and stationary speech-shaped noise as the stimuli. The behavioral measures included speech detection thresholds (SDTs), speech recognition thresholds (SRTs), and speech comprehension scores (i.e., response times). For the electrophysiological measures, multichannel electroencephalography (EEG) recordings were performed. N100 and P300 responses were evoked using an active auditory oddball paradigm. N400 and Late Positive Complex (LPC) responses were evoked using a paradigm based on congruent and incongruent digit triplets, with the digits presented either all acoustically or first visually (digits 1-2) and then acoustically (digit 3). While no correlations between the SDTs and SRTs and the N100 and P300 responses were found, the response times were correlated with the EEG responses to the congruent and incongruent triplets. Furthermore, significant differences between the response times (but not EEG responses) obtained with auditory and visual-then-auditory stimulus presentation were observed. This pattern of results could reflect a faster recall mechanism when the first two digits are presented visually rather than acoustically. The visual-then-auditory condition may facilitate the assessment of comprehension-related processes in hard-of-hearing individuals.
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.