ArticleBiology2024
Predictors of Speech-in-Noise Understanding in a Population of Occupationally Noise-Exposed Individuals.
Article in Biology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Relationships Between Self-Report Hearing Scales, Listening Effort, and Speech Perception in Cocktail Party Noise in Hearing-Aided Patients.Audiology research · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Understanding speech in noise is particularly difficult for individuals occupationally exposed to noise due to a mix of noise-induced auditory lesions and the energetic masking of speech signals. For years, the monitoring of conventional audiometric thresholds has been the usual method to check and preserve auditory function. Recently, suprathreshold deficits, notably, difficulties in understanding speech in noise, has pointed out the need for new monitoring tools. The present study aims to identify the most important variables that predict speech in noise understanding in order to suggest a new method of hearing status monitoring. Physiological (distortion products of otoacoustic emissions, electrocochleography) and behavioral (amplitude and frequency modulation detection thresholds, conventional and extended high-frequency audiometric thresholds) variables were collected in a population of individuals presenting a relatively homogeneous occupational noise exposure. Those variables were used as predictors in a statistical model (random forest) to predict the scores of three different speech-in-noise tests and a self-report of speech-in-noise ability. The extended high-frequency threshold appears to be the best predictor and therefore an interesting candidate for a new way of monitoring noise-exposed professionals.
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.