ArticleTrends in hearing
The Effect of Collaborative Triadic Conversations in Noise on Decision-Making in a General-Knowledge Task.
Article in Trends in hearing. 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.
- Investigating the impact of background noise on collaborative decision-making using an individual-weighted voting model.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2026Article
- Adaptions in eye-movement behavior during face-to-face communication in noise.Frontiers in psychology · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Collaboration is a key element of many communicative interactions. Analyzing the effect of collaborative interaction on subsequent decision-making tasks offers the potential to quantitatively evaluate criteria that are indicative of successful communication. While many studies have explored how collaboration aids decision-making, little is known about how communicative barriers, such as loud background noise or hearing impairment, affect this process. This study investigated how collaborative triadic conversations held in different background noise levels affected the decision-making of individual group members in a subsequent individual task. Thirty normal-hearing participants were recruited and organized into triads. First, each participant answered a series of binary general knowledge questions and provided a confidence rating along with each response. The questions were then discussed in triads in either loud (78 dB) or soft (48 dB) background noise. Participants then answered the same questions individually again. Three decision-making measures - stay/switch behavior, decision convergence, and voting strategy - were used to assess if and how participants adjusted their initial decisions after the conversations. The results revealed an interaction between initial confidence rating and noise level: participants were more likely to modify their decisions towards high-confidence prior decisions, and this effect was more pronounced when the conversations had taken place in loud noise. We speculate that this may be because low-confidence opinions are less likely to be voiced in noisy environments compared to high-confidence opinions. The findings demonstrate that decision-making tasks can be designed for conversation studies with groups of more than two participants, and that such tasks can be used to explore how communicative barriers impact subsequent decision-making of individual group members.
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.