ArticleAudiology research2024
Development of New Open-Set Speech Material for Use in Clinical Audiology with Speakers of British English.
Article in Audiology research, 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, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
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
5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe Chear open-set performance test (COPT), which uses a carrier phrase followed by a monosyllabic test word, is intended for clinical assessment of speech recognition, evaluation of hearing-device performance, and the fine-tuning of hearing devices for speakers of British English. This paper assesses practice effects, test-retest reliability, and the variability across lists of the COPT.
methodIn experiment 1, 16 normal-hearing participants were tested using an initial version of the COPT, at three speech-to-noise ratios (SNRs). Experiment 2 used revised COPT lists, with items swapped between lists to reduce differences in difficulty across lists. In experiment 3, test-retest repeatability was assessed for stimuli presented in quiet, using 15 participants with sensorineural hearing loss.
resultsAfter administration of a single practice list, no practice effects were evident. The critical difference between scores for two lists was about 2 words (out of 15) or 5 phonemes (out of 50). The mean estimated SNR required for 74% words correct was -0.56 dB, with a standard deviation across lists of 0.16 dB. For the participants with hearing loss tested in quiet, the critical difference between scores for two lists was about 3 words (out of 15) or 6 phonemes (out of 50).
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.