ArticleTrends in hearing
Acoustic Realism of Clinical Speech-in-Noise Testing: Parameter Ranges of Speech-Likeness, Interaural Coherence, and Interaural Differences.
Article in Trends in hearing. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Speech-in-noise testing is a valuable component of audiological examination that can provide estimates of a listener's ability to communicate in their everyday life. It has long been recognized, however, that the acoustics of real-world environments are complex and variable and not well represented by a typical clinical test setup. The first aim of this study was to quantify real-world environments in terms of several acoustic parameters that may be relevant for speech understanding (namely speech-likeness, interaural coherence, and interaural time and level differences). Earlier acoustic analyses of binaural recordings in natural environments were extended to binaural re-creations of natural environments that included conversational speech embedded in recorded backgrounds and allowed a systematic manipulation of signal-to-noise ratio. The second aim of the study was to examine these same parameters in typical clinical speech-in-noise tests and consider the "acoustic realism" of such tests. We confirmed that the parameter spaces of natural environments are poorly covered by those of the most commonly used clinical test with one frontal loudspeaker. We also demonstrated that a simple variation of the clinical test, which uses two spatially separated loudspeakers to present speech and noise, leads to better coverage of the parameter spaces of natural environments. Overall, the results provide a framework for characterizing different listening environments that may guide future efforts to increase the real-world relevance of clinical speech-in-noise testing.
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.