Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40101960›Full record

ArticleeNeuro2025

Individual Differences in Cognition and Perception Predict Neural Processing of Speech in Noise for Audiometrically Normal Listeners.

Sana Shehabi, Daniel C Comstock, Kelsey Mankel, Brett M Bormann, Soukhin Das, Hilary Brodie, Doron Sagiv, Lee M Miller

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in eNeuro, 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. 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

8 authors.

Sana ShehabiCenter for Mind and Brain, University of California, Davis, Davis, California 95618.
Daniel C ComstockCenter for Mind and Brain, University of California, Davis, Davis, California 95618.
Kelsey MankelCenter for Mind and Brain, University of California, Davis, Davis, California 95618.
Brett M BormannCenter for Mind and Brain, University of California, Davis, Davis, California 95618.
Soukhin DasCenter for Mind and Brain, University of California, Davis, Davis, California 95618.
Hilary BrodieDepartments of Otolaryngology | Head and Neck Surgery, University of California, Davis, Davis, California 95616.
Doron SagivDepartments of Otolaryngology | Head and Neck Surgery, University of California, Davis, Davis, California 95616.
Lee M MillerCenter for Mind and Brain, University of California, Davis, Davis, California 95618 leemiller@ucdavis.edu.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5094-6724

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Individuals with normal hearing exhibit considerable variability in their capacity to understand speech in noisy environments. Previous research suggests the cause of this variance may be due to individual differences in cognition and auditory perception. To investigate the impact of cognitive and perceptual differences on speech comprehension, 25 adult human participants with normal hearing completed numerous cognitive and psychoacoustic tasks including the Flanker, Stroop, Trail Making, reading span, and temporal fine structure tests. They also completed a continuous multitalker spatial attention task while neural activity was recorded using electroencephalography. The auditory cortical N1 response was extracted as a measure of neural speech encoding during continuous speech listening using an engineered "chirped-speech" (Cheech) stimulus. We compared N1 component morphologies of target and masker speech stimuli to assess neural correlates of attentional gains while listening to concurrently played short story narratives. Performance on cognitive and psychoacoustic tasks was used to predict N1 component amplitude differences between attended and unattended speech using multiple regression. Results show inhibitory control and working memory abilities can predict N1 amplitude differences between the target and masker stories. Interestingly, none of the cognitive and psychoacoustic predictors correlated with behavioral speech-in-noise listening performance in the attention task, suggesting that neural measures may capture different aspects of cognitive and auditory processing compared with behavioral measures alone.

Indexed as

CognitionIndividualityNoiseSpeech PerceptionAcoustic StimulationAdultAttentionElectroencephalographyEvoked Potentials, AuditoryFemaleHumansMalePerceptual MaskingPsychoacousticsYoung Adultauditory attentionauditory processingcognitionevent-related potentialN1 componentspeech-in-noise

Identifiers

PMID40101960
PMCPMC12042997

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.