ArticleBrain research2024
Functional benefits of continuous vs. categorical listening strategies on the neural encoding and perception of noise-degraded speech.
Article in Brain research, 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.
- Structural connectivity of auditory-linguistic brain networks predicts success in speech categorization and listening in noise.Neuroscience · 2026Article
- English vowel identification in noise shows reduced native-language influence: a behavioral study using machine-learning analysis of Chinese children.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Consistency in phonetic categorization predicts successful speech-in-noise perception.JASA express letters · 2025Article
- Article
- Neural correlates of phonetic categorization under auditory (phoneme) and visual (grapheme) modalities.Neuroscience · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Acoustic information in speech changes continuously, yet listeners form discrete perceptual categories to ease the demands of perception. Being a more continuous/gradient as opposed to a more discrete/categorical listener may be further advantageous for understanding speech in noise by increasing perceptual flexibility and resolving ambiguity. The degree to which a listener's responses to a continuum of speech sounds are categorical versus continuous can be quantified using visual analog scaling (VAS) during speech labeling tasks. Here, we recorded event-related brain potentials (ERPs) to vowels along an acoustic-phonetic continuum (/u/ to /a/) while listeners categorized phonemes in both clean and noise conditions. Behavior was assessed using standard two alternative forced choice (2AFC) and VAS paradigms to evaluate categorization under task structures that promote discrete vs. continuous hearing, respectively. Behaviorally, identification curves were steeper under 2AFC vs. VAS categorization but were relatively immune to noise, suggesting robust access to abstract, phonetic categories even under signal degradation. Behavioral slopes were correlated with listeners' QuickSIN scores; shallower slopes corresponded with better speech in noise performance, suggesting a perceptual advantage to noise degraded speech comprehension conferred by a more gradient listening strategy. At the neural level, P2 amplitudes and latencies of the ERPs were modulated by task and noise; VAS responses were larger and showed greater noise-related latency delays than 2AFC responses. More gradient responders had smaller shifts in ERP latency with noise, suggesting their neural encoding of speech was more resilient to noise degradation. Interestingly, source-resolved ERPs showed that more gradient listening was also correlated with stronger neural responses in left superior temporal gyrus. Our results demonstrate that listening strategy modulates the categorical organization of speech and behavioral success, with more continuous/gradient listening being advantageous to sentential speech in noise perception.
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.