ArticleEar and hearing
Communication Under Sharply Degraded Auditory Input and the "2-Sentence" Problem.
Article in Ear and hearing. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Sentence recall and neurophysiological effects of the "2-Sentence Problem" under time compression in younger and older listeners.Hearing research · 2025Article
- Repairing Misperceptions of Words Early in a Sentence is More Effortful Than Repairing Later Words, Especially for Listeners With Cochlear Implants.Trends in hearingArticle
- Seeing a Talker's Mouth Reduces the Effort of Perceiving Speech and Repairing Perceptual Mistakes for Listeners With Cochlear Implants.Ear and hearingArticle
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesDespite performing well in standard clinical assessments of speech perception, many cochlear implant (CI) users report experiencing significant difficulties when listening in real-world environments. We hypothesize that this disconnect may be related, in part, to the limited ecological validity of tests that are currently used clinically and in research laboratories. The challenges that arise from degraded auditory information provided by a CI, combined with the listener's finite cognitive resources, may lead to difficulties when processing speech material that is more demanding than the single words or single sentences that are used in clinical tests.
designHere, we investigate whether speech identification performance and processing effort (indexed by pupil dilation measures) are affected when CI users or normal-hearing control subjects are asked to repeat two sentences presented sequentially instead of just one sentence.
resultsResponse accuracy was minimally affected in normal-hearing listeners, but CI users showed a wide range of outcomes, from no change to decrements of up to 45 percentage points. The amount of decrement was not predictable from the CI users' performance in standard clinical tests. Pupillometry measures tracked closely with task difficulty in both the CI group and the normal-hearing group, even though the latter had speech perception scores near ceiling levels for all conditions.
conclusionsSpeech identification performance is significantly degraded in many (but not all) CI users in response to input that is only slightly more challenging than standard clinical tests; specifically, when two sentences are presented sequentially before requesting a response, instead of presenting just a single sentence at a time. This potential "2-sentence problem" represents one of the simplest possible scenarios that go beyond presentation of the single words or sentences used in most clinical tests of speech perception, and it raises the possibility that even good performers in single-sentence tests may be seriously impaired by other ecologically relevant manipulations. The present findings also raise the possibility that a clinical version of a 2-sentence test may provide actionable information for counseling and rehabilitating CI users, and for people who interact with them closely.
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.