Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40617878›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

Individual differences in auditory scene analysis abilities in music and speech.

Robin Hake, Daniel Müllensiefen, Kai Siedenburg

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Auditory scene analysis in music: A synthetic review.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2026
    Review
  2. Review
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

3 authors.

Robin HakeDepartment of Medical Physics and Acoustics, University of Oldenburg, Oldenburg, Germany. robin.hake@uni-oldenburg.de.
Daniel MüllensiefenInstitute for Systematic Musicology, University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany.
Kai SiedenburgDepartment of Medical Physics and Acoustics, University of Oldenburg, Oldenburg, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Auditory scene analysis (ASA) is the ability to organize complex auditory mixtures into meaningful events and streams and is fundamental for auditory perception of both music and speech. Individual differences in ASA are recognized in the literature, yet the factors driving this variability remain poorly understood. This study employs a novel music-based ASA task, the Musical Scene Analysis (MSA) test, alongside a speech-in-noise test, to examine the influence of hearing loss, age, working memory capacity (WMC), and musical training. Ninety-two participants were categorised into four groups: 31 older normal-hearing, 34 older hearing-impaired, 26 younger normal-hearing, and one younger hearing-impaired individual. Results reveal a moderate correlation between ASA performance in speech and music (r = - .5), suggesting shared underlying perceptual processes, yet the factors influencing individual differences varied across domains. A dual modelling approach using ridge regression and gradient-boosted decision trees identified hearing loss as the strongest predictor of speech-based ASA, with a weaker effect of age, while musical training and WMC had no impact. In contrast, musical training showed a substantial effect on musical ASA, alongside moderate effects of hearing loss and age, while WMC exhibited only a marginal, non-robust effect. These findings highlight both shared and domain-specific factors influencing ASA abilities in music and speech.

Indexed as

Auditory PerceptionIndividualityMusicSpeechSpeech PerceptionAcoustic StimulationAdultAgedFemaleHearing LossHumansMaleMemory, Short-TermMiddle AgedYoung AdultAgeAuditory scene analysisHearing lossIndividual differencesMusical trainingWorking memory

Identifiers

PMID40617878
PMCPMC12228759

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.