ArticleScientific reports2024
A lecturer's voice quality and its effect on memory, listening effort, and perception in a VR environment.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- The influence of complex classroom noise on auditory selective attention.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Reduced listening effort with adaptive binaural beamforming in realistic noisy environments.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Exploring short-term memory and listening effort in two-talker conversations: The influence of soft and moderate background noise.PloS one · 2025Article
- Listening effort in children and adults in classroom noise.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- The effect of classroom size and ceiling height on college students' learning performance using virtual reality technology.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Listening Effort in Complex Audiovisual Scenes Under Varying Simulated Room Acoustic Conditions.Trends in hearingArticle
- Effectiveness of a mobile phone application in managing voice health for teachers: A randomized controlled trial.Digital healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Many lecturers develop voice problems, such as hoarseness. Nevertheless, research on how voice quality influences listeners' perception, comprehension, and retention of spoken language is limited to a small number of audio-only experiments. We aimed to address this gap by using audio-visual virtual reality (VR) to investigate the impact of a lecturer's hoarseness on university students' heard text recall, listening effort, and listening impression. Fifty participants were immersed in a virtual seminar room, where they engaged in a Dual-Task Paradigm. They listened to narratives presented by a virtual female professor, who spoke in either a typical or hoarse voice. Simultaneously, participants performed a secondary task. Results revealed significantly prolonged secondary-task response times with the hoarse voice compared to the typical voice, indicating increased listening effort. Subjectively, participants rated the hoarse voice as more annoying, effortful to listen to, and impeding for their cognitive performance. No effect of voice quality was found on heard text recall, suggesting that, while hoarseness may compromise certain aspects of spoken language processing, this might not necessarily result in reduced information retention. In summary, our findings underscore the importance of promoting vocal health among lecturers, which may contribute to enhanced listening conditions in learning spaces.
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.