Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39921717›Full record

SynthesisEuropean archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery2025

The effect of noise on listening effort in children as measured using different methods: a systematic review and meta-analyses.

Gudambe Nellithaya Spoorthi, Ajith Kumar Uppunda, Mohan Kumar Kalaiah, Usha Shastri

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Dual-task speech-in-noise performance in children with unilateral cleft lip and palate and minimal conductive hearing loss.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2026
    Article
  2. 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

4 authors.

Gudambe Nellithaya SpoorthiDepartment of Audiology and Speech Language Pathology, Kasturba Medical College Mangalore, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Karnataka, Manipal, 576104, India.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0586-7522
Ajith Kumar UppundaDepartment of Audiology, All India Institute of Speech and Hearing, Mysuru, India.
Mohan Kumar KalaiahDepartment of Audiology and Speech Language Pathology, Kasturba Medical College Mangalore, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Karnataka, Manipal, 576104, India.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9984-9175
Usha ShastriDepartment of Audiology and Speech Language Pathology, Kasturba Medical College Mangalore, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Karnataka, Manipal, 576104, India. usha.shastri@manipal.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1172-3549

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeListening effort increases as background noise levels rise, affecting both children and adults. Understanding the impact of increased listening effort and identifying effective methods to estimate it in children is crucial, as higher listening effort can hinder learning. This systematic review and meta-analysis examined the effects of noise on listening effort, as measured using various methods, in children aged 5 to 13 years with normal hearing.

methodsFour scientific databases, PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science, were searched to retrieve 23 eligible articles. The methodological quality of the studies was assessed using Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist for Analytical Cross-Sectional Studies. Meta-analysis was performed according to different methods of listening effort [behavioral (single-task paradigm and dual-task paradigm), subjective ratings, and physiological (pupillometry)].

resultsSingle-task paradigm and subjective ratings showed a medium effect of noise on listening effort, which was significant. Dual-task paradigm and pupillometry did not show statistically significant effects of noise on listening effort. Further, speech perception tasks show a greater effect of noise on listening effort as compared to listening comprehension.

conclusionsSingle-task paradigm and subjective rating methods revealed the negative effect of noise on listening effort during spoken language processing in children between 5-13 years of age. Thus, a combination of these two methods might provide useful information regarding the effect of noise on this population. The heterogeneity in the findings could be due to the multidimensional nature of listening effort and lack of construct validity of the methods used to assess listening effort.

Indexed as

NoiseSpeech PerceptionAdolescentChildChild, PreschoolHumansDual-task paradigmListening effortPupillometryResponse timeSignal-to-noise ratioSingle-task paradigmSubjective ratingSystematic review

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.