ArticleJournal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR2024
Recognition of Speech With Dynamic Pitch Manipulation in Noise: Effects of Manipulation Methods.
Article in Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purpose
methodSpeech recognition accuracy in noise was measured from younger adults with normal hearing in Experiment 1, and speech reception threshold (in dB SNR) from older adults with normal hearing to mild-moderate hearing loss in Experiment 2. The dynamic pitch contours of the speech stimuli were manipulated using both symmetrical and asymmetrical methods.
resultsYounger adults recognized speech better in noise with asymmetrical than symmetrical manipulation, and with weakened than strengthened dynamic pitch. A substantial amount of variability was observed in a group of older listeners. This variability was predominately predicted by the listeners' age but not hearing thresholds or their ability to perceive dynamic pitch in fluctuating noise.
conclusionsThe asymmetrical manipulation of dynamic pitch had a less negative effect than the symmetrical manipulation. This effect also interacted with pitch-change direction. These findings suggest the influence of perceptual naturalness on speech recognition with signal modification. Directions for future research are also discussed.
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.