ArticleThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America2023
Simultaneous relative cue reliance in speech-on-speech masking.
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.
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
3 authors.
Funding
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
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.