ArticleAmerican journal of audiology2025
Age-Related Differences in Comprehending Speech in Competition.
Article in American journal of audiology, 2025. 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThe ability to discriminate speech with background noise decreases with age. This study examined the effect of masker type and spatial location in older and young adults.
methodUsing Portable Automated Rapid Testing software on an iPad, participants were asked to understand target speech (always simulated at 0° azimuth) in the presence of speech or "garbled speech" maskers (simulated from 0°, 6°, or 45° azimuth spatial locations). Additionally, suprathreshold sensitivities to temporal (TM), spectral (SM), and spectrotemporal (STM) modulation as well as binaural temporal fine structure (TFS) were estimated.
resultsOlder adults showed worse speech in competition (SiC) performance with 6° and 45°, but not 0°, masker spatial locations and benefited less from only 45° of spatial separation compared to young controls for speech masking. For garbled-speech masking, older adults showed worse performance overall, but benefited similarly from spatial separation compared to young controls. Older adults also showed worse sensitivity for binaural TFS, but comparable TM, SM, and STM sensitivity. Age as well as TM and SM sensitivities predicted SiC performance, whereas STM and binaural TFS sensitivities did not.
conclusionThese findings expand our knowledge of how aging and suprathreshold sensitivities affect SiC comprehension.
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.