Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40906824›Full record

ArticlePloS one2025

Auditory and cognitive contributions to recognition of degraded speech in noise: Individual differences among older adults.

Daniel Fogerty, Judy R Dubno

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

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.

Daniel FogertyDepartment of Speech and Hearing Science, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, Illinois, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2611-102X
Judy R DubnoDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2340-4721

Funding

South Carolina Clinical & Translational Research Institute (SCTR)UL1TR001450 · NCATS · MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA · PI BRADY, KATHLEEN T., FLUME, PATRICK A · 2015 to 2024
$41.1M
AUDITORY ANALYSIS AND SPEECH RECOGNITIONR01DC000184 · NIDCD · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES · PI DUBNO, JUDY R · 1989 to 2016
$5.1M
Maximizing speech recognition under adverse listening conditionsR01DC015465 · NIDCD · UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA AT COLUMBIA · PI FOGERTY, DANIEL · 2016 to 2020
$1.6M
RENOVATION TO SUPPORT SENSORY NEUROSCIENCE RESEARCHC06RR014516 · NCRR · MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA · PI RAYMOND, JOHN R · 1999 to 1999
–
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001450NCRR NIH HHS C06 RR014516NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC000184NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC015465
6 · The paper itself

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

CognitionHearing LossIndividualityNoiseSpeech PerceptionAcoustic StimulationAgedAged, 80 and overAuditory ThresholdFemaleHearingHumansMaleMiddle Aged

Identifiers

PMID40906824
PMCPMC12410885

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.