Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40370075›Full record

ArticleTrends in hearing

Speech Recognition and Noise Adaptation in Realistic Noises.

Miriam I Marrufo-Pérez, Enrique A Lopez-Poveda

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Miriam I Marrufo-PérezInstituto de Neurociencias de Castilla y León (INCYL), Universidad de Salamanca, Salamanca, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-8737-8107
Enrique A Lopez-PovedaInstituto de Neurociencias de Castilla y León (INCYL), Universidad de Salamanca, Salamanca, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-6886-154X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The recognition of isolated words in noise improves as words are delayed from the noise onset. This phenomenon, known as adaptation to noise, has been mostly investigated using synthetic noises. The aim here was to investigate whether adaptation occurs for realistic noises and to what extent it depends on the spectrum and level fluctuations of the noise. Forty-nine different realistic and synthetic noises were analyzed and classified according to how much they fluctuated in level over time and how much their spectra differed from the speech spectrum. Six representative noises were chosen that covered the observed range of level fluctuations and spectral differences but could still mask speech. For the six noises, speech reception thresholds (SRTs) were measured for natural and tone-vocoded words delayed 50 (early condition) and 800 ms (late condition) from the noise onset. Adaptation was calculated as the SRT improvement in the late relative to the early condition. Twenty-two adults with normal hearing participated in the experiments. For natural words, adaptation was small overall (mean = 0.5 dB) and similar across the six noises. For vocoded words, significant adaptation occurred for all six noises (mean = 1.3 dB) and was not statistically different across noises. For the tested noises, the amount of adaptation was independent of the spectrum and level fluctuations of the noise. The results suggest that adaptation in speech recognition can occur in realistic noisy environments.

Indexed as

Adaptation, PhysiologicalNoisePerceptual MaskingRecognition, PsychologySpeech PerceptionAcoustic StimulationAdultAuditory ThresholdFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedSpeech IntelligibilitySpeech Reception Threshold TestTime FactorsYoung Adultnoisesound-level statisticsspeech intelligibility

Identifiers

PMID40370075
PMCPMC12081978

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.