ReviewSeminars in hearing2025
The Impacts of Two Adaptive Auditory-Cognitive Training Paradigms on Listening to Competing Talkers.
Review in Seminars in hearing, 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Speech intelligibility among competing talkers becomes more difficult with age, even for older adults with clinically normal hearing. Recently, there has been a growing interest in the implementation of auditory-cognitive training to improve speech-in-noise recognition performance, particularly for older adults. In this study, we implemented two levels of cognitive demand in an adaptive auditory-cognitive training program that used a competing-speaker paradigm. Older adults with normal to near-normal hearing thresholds were assessed on training performance (at the individual and group level), self-reported training strategies, and far-transfer learning in a speech-perception-in-noise task. Training performance analysis revealed that some older adults, particularly those in the more demanding training, performed poorly during the auditory-cognitive training itself. Some participants in this group reported disengagement, potentially due to the low level of those individuals' self-reported satisfaction with engaging in challenging tasks in daily life. Despite these challenges, however, both groups generally improved in the far-transfer learning assessment, though there was variation among participants. Our results suggest that too-high levels of cognitive demand within the auditory-cognitive training may limit some aspects of training outcomes for speech perception in noise; however, higher cognitive demand may be beneficial for those who enjoy challenging tasks.
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.