ArticleJournal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR2023
Development of a Sentence Verification Task to Measure Speech Comprehension and Listening Effort in Cochlear Implant Users.
Article in Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR, 2023. 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effect of Speaking Rate and Sentence Context on Comprehension and Recognition Memory of Degraded Speech.Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR · 2026Article
- Evolving perspectives on speech perception assessment in adults with cochlear implants: Are we using the right tests?Frontiers in neuroscience · 2025Review
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTests measuring speech comprehension and listening effort for cochlear implant (CI) users may reflect important aspects of real-world speech communication. In this study, we describe the development of a multiple-talker, English-language sentence verification task (SVT) for use in adult CI users to measure speech comprehension and listening effort. We also examine whether talker differences affect speech comprehension and listening effort.
methodThirteen experienced adult CI users participated in the study and underwent testing using a newly developed multiple-talker SVT. Participants were sequentially presented with audio recordings of unique sentences spoken in English by six different talkers. Participants classified each sentence as either true or false. Accuracy of classification and the response time (RT) for correct responses were used as measures of comprehension and listening effort, respectively. The effect of talker on the results was further analyzed.
resultsAll 13 participants successfully completed the SVT. The mean verification accuracy for participants was 87.2% ± 8.8%. The mean RT for correct responses across participants was 1,050 ms ± 391 ms. When stratified by talker, verification accuracy ranged from 83.7% to 95.2% and mean RTs across participant ranged from 786 ms to 1,254 ms. Talker did not have a significant effect on sentence classification accuracy, but it did have a significant effect on RTs (
conclusionsThe SVT is an easily implemented test that can assess speech comprehension and listening effort simultaneously. CI users may experience increased effort for comprehending certain talkers' speech, despite showing similar levels of comprehension accuracy. SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.24126630.
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.