ArticleTrends in hearing
Release from Speech-on-Speech Masking: Additivity of Segregation Cues and Build-Up of Segregation.
Article in Trends in hearing. 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Several segregation cues help listeners understand speech in the presence of distractor talkers, most notably differences in talker sex (i.e., differences in fundamental frequency and vocal tract length) and spatial location. It is unclear, however, how these cues work together, namely whether they show additive or even synergistic effects. Furthermore, previous research suggests better performance for target words that occur later in a sentence or sequence. We additionally investigate for which segregation cues or cue combinations this build-up occurs and whether it depends on memory effects. Twenty normal-hearing participants completed a speech-on-speech masking experiment using the OLSA (a German matrix test) speech material. We adaptively measured speech-reception thresholds for different segregation cues (differences in spatial location, fundamental frequency, and talker sex) and response conditions (which word(s) need(s) to be reported). The results show better thresholds for single-word reports, reflecting memory constraints for multiple-word reports. We also found additivity of segregation cues for multiple- but sub-additivity for single-word reports. Finally, we observed a build-up of release from speech-on-speech masking that depended on response and cue conditions, namely no build-up for multiple-word reports and continuous build-up except for the easiest condition, i.e., different sex/spatially separated maskers for single-word reports. These results shed further light on how listeners follow a target talker in the presence of competing talkers, i.e., the classical cocktail-party problem, and indicate the potential for performance improvement from enhancing segregation cues in the hearing-impaired.
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.