ArticleThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America2024
Testing the role of temporal coherence on speech intelligibility with noise and single-talker maskers.
Article in The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Temporal coherence effects on voice attribution in multi-speaker stream segregation.JASA express letters · 2025Article
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
Abstract
Temporal coherence, where sounds with aligned timing patterns are perceived as a single source, is considered an essential cue in auditory scene analysis. However, its effects have been studied primarily with simple repeating tones, rather than speech. This study investigated the role of temporal coherence in speech by introducing across-frequency asynchronies. The effect of asynchrony on the intelligibility of target sentences was tested in the presence of background speech-shaped noise or a single-talker interferer. Our hypothesis was that disrupting temporal coherence should not only reduce intelligibility but also impair listeners' ability to segregate the target speech from an interfering talker, leading to greater degradation for speech-in-speech than speech-in-noise tasks. Stimuli were filtered into eight frequency bands, which were then desynchronized with delays of 0-120 ms. As expected, intelligibility declined as asynchrony increased. However, the decline was similar for both noise and single-talker maskers. Primarily target, rather than masker, asynchrony affected performance for both natural (forward) and reversed-speech maskers, and for target sentences with low and high semantic context. The results suggest that temporal coherence may not be as critical a cue for speech segregation as it is for the non-speech stimuli traditionally used in studies of auditory scene analysis.
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.