ArticleJournal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR2023
A Comparison of Listening Skills of Autistic and Non-Autistic Youth While Using and Not Using Remote Microphone Systems.
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 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThe purposes of this study were to compare (a) listening-in-noise (accuracy and effort) and (b) remote microphone (RM) system benefits between autistic and non-autistic youth.
designGroups of autistic and non-autistic youth that were matched on chronological age and biological sex completed listening-in-noise testing when wearing and not wearing an RM system. Listening-in-noise accuracy and listening effort were evaluated simultaneously using a dual-task paradigm for stimuli varying in type (syllables, words, sentences, and passages). Several putative moderators of RM system effects on outcomes of interest were also evaluated.
resultsAutistic youth outperformed non-autistic youth in some conditions on listening-in-noise accuracy; listening effort between the two groups was not significantly different. RM system use resulted in listening-in-noise accuracy improvements that were nonsignificantly different across groups. Benefits of listening-in-noise accuracy were all large in magnitude. RM system use did not have an effect on listening effort for either group. None of the putative moderators yielded effects of the RM system on listening-in-noise accuracy or effort for non-autistic youth that were significant and interpretable, indicating that RM system benefits did not vary according to any of the participant characteristics assessed.
conclusionsContrary to expectations, autistic youth did not demonstrate listening-in-noise deficits compared to non-autistic youth. Both autistic and non-autistic youth appear to experience RM system benefits marked by large gains in listening-in-noise performance. Thus, the use of this technology in educational and other noisy settings where speech perception needs enhancement might be beneficial for both groups of children.
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.