ArticleeNeuro2025
The Effect of Speech Masking on the Human Subcortical Response to Continuous Speech.
Article in eNeuro, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Impacts of heminode disruption on auditory processing of noisy sound stimuli.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- The auditory brainstem response to natural speech is not affected by selective attention.PLoS biology · 2025Article
- Optimal Parameters for Measuring Multiband Auditory Brainstem Responses to Continuous Speech.Trends in hearingArticle
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Auditory masking-the interference of the encoding and processing of an acoustic stimulus imposed by one or more competing stimuli-is nearly omnipresent in daily life and presents a critical barrier to many listeners, including people with hearing loss, users of hearing aids and cochlear implants, and people with auditory processing disorders. The perceptual aspects of masking have been actively studied for several decades, and particular emphasis has been placed on masking of speech by other speech sounds. The neural effects of such masking, especially at the subcortical level, have been much less studied, in large part due to the technical limitations of making such measurements. Recent work has allowed estimation of the auditory brainstem response (ABR), whose characteristic waves are linked to specific subcortical areas, to naturalistic speech. In this study, we used those techniques to measure the encoding of speech stimuli that were masked by one or more simultaneous other speech stimuli. We presented listeners with simultaneous speech from one, two, three, or five simultaneous talkers, corresponding to a range of signal-to-noise ratios (clean, 0, -3, and -6 dB), and derived the ABR to each talker in the mixture. Each talker in a mixture was treated in turn as a target sound masked by other talkers, making the response quicker to acquire. We found consistently across listeners that ABR Wave V amplitudes decreased and latencies increased as the number of competing talkers increased.
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.