ArticleBiology2024
Effects of Temporal Processing on Speech-in-Noise Perception in Middle-Aged Adults.
Article in Biology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Influence of age on speech-in-noise and spatial processing abilities in middle-aged adults.PloS one · 2026Article
- Age and sex differences in speech FFR suggest early central auditory aging.Scientific reports · 2025Observational
- Consequences and Mechanisms of Noise-Induced Cochlear Synaptopathy and Hidden Hearing Loss, With Focuses on Signal Perception in Noise and Temporal Processing.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2025Review
- A Systematic Review: State of the Science on Diagnostics of Hidden Hearing Loss.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Neural adaptations to temporal cues degradation in early blind: insights from envelope and fine structure vocoding.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2025Article
- Event-Related Potentials as Markers of Age-Related Changes of Spatial Hearing in Normal-Hearing Adults.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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Auditory temporal processing is a vital component of auditory stream segregation, or the process in which complex sounds are separated and organized into perceptually meaningful objects. Temporal processing can degrade prior to hearing loss, and is suggested to be a contributing factor to difficulties with speech-in-noise perception in normal-hearing listeners. The current study tested this hypothesis in middle-aged adults-an under-investigated cohort, despite being the age group where speech-in-noise difficulties are first reported. In 76 participants, three mechanisms of temporal processing were measured: peripheral auditory nerve function using electrocochleography, subcortical encoding of periodic speech cues (i.e., fundamental frequency; F0) using the frequency following response, and binaural sensitivity to temporal fine structure (TFS) using a dichotic frequency modulation detection task. Two measures of speech-in-noise perception were administered to explore how contributions of temporal processing may be mediated by different sensory demands present in the speech perception task. This study supported the hypothesis that temporal coding deficits contribute to speech-in-noise difficulties in middle-aged listeners. Poorer speech-in-noise perception was associated with weaker subcortical F0 encoding and binaural TFS sensitivity, but in different contexts, highlighting that diverse aspects of temporal processing are differentially utilized based on speech-in-noise task characteristics.
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.