ArticleTrends in hearing
The Effect of Sound Localization on Auditory-Only and Audiovisual Speech Recognition in a Simulated Multitalker Environment.
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 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
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.
Funding
Abstract
Information regarding sound-source spatial location provides several speech-perception benefits, including auditory spatial cues for perceptual talker separation and localization cues to face the talker to obtain visual speech information. These benefits have typically been examined separately. A real-time processing algorithm for sound-localization degradation (LocDeg) was used to investigate how spatial-hearing benefits interact in a multitalker environment. Normal-hearing adults performed auditory-only and auditory-visual sentence recognition with target speech and maskers presented from loudspeakers at -90°, -36°, 36°, or 90° azimuths. For auditory-visual conditions, one target and three masking talker videos (always spatially separated) were rendered virtually in rectangular windows at these locations on a head-mounted display. Auditory-only conditions presented blank windows at these locations. Auditory target speech (always spatially aligned with the target video) was presented in co-located speech-shaped noise (experiment 1) or with three co-located or spatially separated auditory interfering talkers corresponding to the masker videos (experiment 2). In the co-located conditions, the LocDeg algorithm did not affect auditory-only performance but reduced target orientation accuracy, reducing auditory-visual benefit. In the multitalker environment, two spatial-hearing benefits were observed: perceptually separating competing speech based on auditory spatial differences and orienting to the target talker to obtain visual speech cues. These two benefits were additive, and both were diminished by the LocDeg algorithm. Although visual cues always improved performance when the target was accurately localized, there was no strong evidence that they provided additional assistance in perceptually separating co-located competing speech. These results highlight the importance of sound localization in everyday communication.
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.