ArticlePloS one2025
Auditory and cognitive contributions to recognition of degraded speech in noise: Individual differences among older adults.
Article in PloS one, 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study examined individual differences in how older adults with normal hearing (ONH) or hearing impairment (OHI) allocate auditory and cognitive resources during speech recognition in noise at equal recognition. Associations between predictor variables and speech recognition were assessed across three datasets that each included 15-16 conditions involving temporally filtered speech. These datasets involved (1) degraded spectral cues, (2) competing speech-modulated noise, and (3) combined degraded spectral cues in speech-modulated noise. To minimize effects of audibility differences, speech was spectrally shaped according to each listener's hearing thresholds. The extended Short-Time Objective Intelligibility metric was used to derive psychometric functions that relate the acoustic degradation to speech recognition. From these functions, speech recognition thresholds (SRTs) were determined at 20%, 50%, and 80% recognition. A multiple regression dominance analysis, conducted separately for ONH and OHI groups, determined the relative importance of auditory and cognitive predictor variables to speech recognition. ONH participants had a stronger association of vocabulary knowledge with speech recognition, whereas OHI participants had a stronger association of speech glimpsing abilities with speech recognition. Combined with measures of working memory and hearing thresholds, these predictors accounted for 73% to 89% of the total variance for ONH and OHI, respectively, and generalized to other diverse measures of speech recognition.
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.