Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37870932›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America2023

Simultaneous relative cue reliance in speech-on-speech masking.

R A Lutfi, M Zandona, J Lee

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

3 authors.

R A LutfiAuditory Behavioral Research Lab, Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida 33620, USA.
M ZandonaAuditory Behavioral Research Lab, Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida 33620, USA.
J LeeAuditory Behavioral Research Lab, Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida 33620, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-1417-0575

Funding

The Information in Auditory PatternsR01DC001262 · NIDCD · UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON · PI LUTFI, ROBERT A · 1991 to 2023
$6.3M
NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC001262
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Modern hearing research has identified the ability of listeners to segregate simultaneous speech streams with a reliance on three major voice cues, fundamental frequency, level, and location. Few of these studies evaluated reliance for these cues presented simultaneously as occurs in nature, and fewer still considered the listeners' relative reliance on these cues owing to the cues' different units of measure. In the present study trial-by-trial analyses were used to isolate the listener's simultaneous reliance on the three voice cues, with the behavior of an ideal observer [Green and Swets (1966). (Wiley, New York), pp.151-178] serving as a comparison standard for evaluating relative reliance. Listeners heard on each trial a pair of randomly selected, simultaneous recordings of naturally spoken sentences. One of the recordings was always from the same talker, a distracter, and the other, with equal probability, was from one of two target talkers differing in the three voice cues. The listener's task was to identify the target talker. Among 33 clinically normal-hearing adults only one relied predominantly on voice level, the remaining were split between voice fundamental frequency and/or location. The results are discussed regarding their implications for the common practice in studies of using target-distracter level as a dependent measure of speech-on-speech masking.

Indexed as

SpeechSpeech PerceptionCuesHearingPerceptual Masking

Identifiers

PMID37870932
PMCPMC10708949

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.