ArticlePloS one2025
Hearing-loss related variations in turn-taking time affect how conversations are perceived.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Identifying Hearing Difficulty Moments in Conversational Audio.Trends in hearingArticle
- Hearing Loss Is Reflected in Conversational Pupil Responses.Trends in hearingArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In conversations, interlocutors with hearing impairment (HI), initiate their turns with longer average delay and more variability than their normal-hearing (NH) conversation partners. This paper investigates whether third-party listeners were able to perceive this difference in turn-taking timing (denoted Floor-Transfer Offsets, FTOs) between NH and HI interlocutors. To this avail, the FTOs of segments of conversations were manipulated using four different schemes, such that the two interlocutors timed their turns as if 1) both were NH interlocutors conversing in quiet (NHQ) or 2) both were HI interlocutors conversing in noise (HIN). Two additional conditions were implemented to test if non-varying and faster FTOs affect the perception, manipulating conversations to have constant FTOs corresponding to 3) the median FTO of the NHQ condition (conNHQ) and 4) an even faster FTO of 50 ms (conLow). Forty-four participants rated conversations from the HIN condition as less natural, with poorer flow, and being more difficult to follow compared to conversations from the NHQ condition. Removing the FTO variability resulted in better ratings of flow (conNHQ vs NHQ), while further decreasing the average FTOs (conLow vs conNHQ) had no effect on the ratings. A detailed analysis revealed poorer ratings of flow for individual conversations with higher FTO median, but similar variability, while FTO variability alone did not affect ratings of flow. Together, the results indicate that listeners, and perhaps also conversation participants, are sensitive to small variations in turn-taking timing and that hearing loss may therefore affect the quality of conversations.
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.