ReviewSeminars in hearing2024
Speech-in-Noise Testing: An Introduction for Audiologists.
Review in Seminars in hearing, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 38 citations in OpenAlex.
- Speech in noise prediction by use of cortical auditory evoked potentials in normal hearing and sensorineural hearing loss: a systematic review.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2026Pooled it
- Auditory-Motor Mechanisms of the Lombard Effect.Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR · 2026Article
- Development of behavioral observation audiometry tests for companion dogs.Applied animal behaviour science · 2026Article
- Listening in Spatialized Noise-Sentences (LiSN-S) as a Measure of Auditory Function in Friedreich Ataxia.Cerebellum (London, England) · 2026Article
- Association between duration of hearing-aid use and frailty in community-dwelling older adults with hearing loss in Japan: a cross-sectional study.BMC geriatrics · 2026Article
- Measuring naturalistic speech comprehension in real time.Behavior research methods · 2026Article
- Differential effects of external noise and situational interest on neurophysiological responses during video based learning.NPJ science of learning · 2025Article
- Review
- Effects of Gamification on Performance and Subjective Listening Effort on a Spatial Release From Masking Task.Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR · 2025Article
- Longitudinal Cochlear Implant Outcomes in Danish Adults: Changes in Speech Recognition, Self-Reported Hearing Ability, Hearing-Related Quality of Life, and Tinnitus.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Multidisciplinary Clinical Assessment and Interventions for Childhood Listening Difficulty and Auditory Processing Disorder: Relation Between Research Findings and Clinical Practice.Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR · 2025Article
- Association Between Unaided Speech Perception in Noise and Hearing Aid Use Mediated by Perceived Benefit.Audiology research · 2025Article
- A Systematic Review: State of the Science on Diagnostics of Hidden Hearing Loss.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Impact of Otoplasty on Speech Intelligibility and Auditory Function in Noise.Indian journal of otolaryngology and head and neck surgery : official publication of the Association of Otolaryngologists of India · 2025Article
- Measuring Speech Intelligibility with Romanian Synthetic Unpredictable Sentences in Normal Hearing.Audiology research · 2024Article
- Evaluating Telugu Speech Perception Measures for Hearing-Aid Benefit: Rationale for Developing Telugu Speech-in-Noise Tests.Noise & healthArticle
- Acoustic Realism of Clinical Speech-in-Noise Testing: Parameter Ranges of Speech-Likeness, Interaural Coherence, and Interaural Differences.Trends in hearingArticle
- Hearing Loss Is Reflected in Conversational Pupil Responses.Trends in hearingArticle
- Assessing Visual Contributions to the Perception of Speech in Noise.Trends in hearingArticle
- Language-agnostic, Automated Assessment of Listeners' Speech Recall Using Large Language Models.Trends in hearingArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Speech-in-noise testing has been proposed as a useful part of the audiometric test battery dating back to the earliest years of the field of audiology. Many speech-in-noise tests have been developed and used to varying degrees. However, multiple barriers have prevented speech-in-noise testing from being used widely in the clinic. The purpose of this article is to provide a resource to audiologists and other hearing health professionals who want to know (1) what tests are available for use, (2) the rationale behind specific tests, and (3) important considerations when selecting one or more tests to use clinically. In addition, data are presented for four speech-in-noise tests with the purpose of comparing outcomes as a function of age and hearing status. The four tests (QuickSIN, Words in Noise [WIN], Listening in Spatialized Noise-Sentences [LiSN-S], and Coordinate Response Measure [CRM]) were completed by 30 individuals from three groups: 10 young adults with normal hearing, 10 older adults with normal hearing, and 10 older adults with hearing loss. The results suggest that, despite significant differences in performance between groups, group overlap was present such that some individuals from one group performed similar to some individuals of other groups; therefore, individual performance was more important than associated group. When selecting an appropriate speech-in-noise test to use clinically, audiologists should carefully consider the purpose of their testing and the type of information they desire as an outcome. A quick-resource table and appendix is provided to aid audiologists and other health professionals in their selection of an appropriate speech-in-noise test.
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.