Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39354014›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2024

Listening to two-talker conversations in quiet settings: the role of listeners' cognitive processing capabilities for memory and listening effort.

Chinthusa Mohanathasan, Janina Fels, Sabine J Schlittmeier

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Chinthusa MohanathasanWork and Engineering Psychology, RWTH Aachen University, 52066, Aachen, Germany. chinthusa.mohanathasan@psych.rwth-aachen.de.ORCID 0000-0001-6916-1425
Janina FelsInstitute for Hearing Technology and Acoustics, RWTH Aachen University, 52074, Aachen, Germany.
Sabine J SchlittmeierWork and Engineering Psychology, RWTH Aachen University, 52066, Aachen, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Listening to conversing talkers in quiet environments and remembering the content is a common activity. However, research on the cognitive demands involved is limited. This study investigates the relevance of individuals' cognitive functions for listeners' memory of two-talker conversations and their listening effort in quiet listening settings. A dual-task paradigm was employed to explore memory of conversational content and listening effort while analyzing the role of participants' (n = 29) working memory capacity (measured through the operation span task), attention (Frankfurt attention inventory 2), and information-processing speed (trail making test). In the primary task, participants listened to a conversation between a male and female talker and answered content-related questions. The two talkers' audio signals were presented through headphones, either spatially separated (+ /- 60°) or co-located (0°). Participants concurrently performed a vibrotactile pattern recognition task as a secondary task to measure listening effort. Results indicated that attention and processing speed were related to memory of conversational content and that all three cognitive functions were related to listening effort. Memory performance and listening effort were similar for spatially separated and co-located talkers when considering the psychometric measures. This research offers valuable insights into cognitive processes during two-talker conversations in quiet settings.

Indexed as

AttentionCognitionSpeech PerceptionAdultAuditory PerceptionFemaleHumansMaleMemoryMemory, Short-TermYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID39354014
PMCPMC11445257

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.