ArticleTrends in hearing
Audio Quality Perception of Hearing-Impaired Listeners in Complex Acoustic Environments.
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
The effect of complex acoustic environments (CAEs), typically comprising target and interfering sound sources as well as room reflections, on the speech reception of hearing-impaired (HI) listeners has been examined in several studies. However, only little is known about audio quality perception of HI listeners in such CAEs. Thus, this study assessed detection thresholds and suprathreshold audio quality ratings of listeners with very mild and moderate hearing loss (HL) for several distortions applied to speech and pink noise: nonlinear saturation, spectral ripples, level differences, and spatial position offsets. The stimuli were presented in acoustical scenes that differ in their complexity by manipulating room size in conjunction with reverberation time, and the number and spatial position of interfering sound sources. The strongest differences between listeners with very mild and moderate HL were observed in the presence of interfering sounds. In such situations, listeners with moderate HL had consistently higher distortion detection thresholds than listeners with very mild HL. Moreover, they rated audio quality lower for the masked than for the unmasked distorted targets, indicating difficulties in separating the target from the maskers. Significant correlations were found between the listeners' pure tone average (PTA) and distortion detection thresholds in situations with maskers. Thus, PTAs seem to be a suitable predictor for distortion thresholds of HI listeners in CAEs. The effect of reverberation strongly depended on the target (speech or pink noise) and the type of distortions.
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.