ArticleAttention, perception & psychophysics2025
Decoding child speech in silence and noise: The type of background noise shapes adults' processing.
Article in Attention, perception & psychophysics, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Processing speech that is non-canonical (i.e., child-produced speech) and/or presented in background noise can pose challenges for listeners. We investigated how listening to child-produced speech affects young adults' word recognition under varying noise conditions. Participants (n = 121) completed a two-picture eye-tracking task in one of three conditions: no background noise, pink background noise, and real-world background noise from LENA recordings. Participants heard a child or adult (Speaker-Age) direct attention to a generic (e.g., keys) or child-specific (e.g., potty; Item-Type) item. We examined the effect of Speaker-Age and Item-Type on participants' looking time. In no background noise, increases in target looking were high, with greater increases when adults produced generic items. Both pink noise and real-world noise increased task difficulty, but patterns of results varied as a function of speaker gender. For female speech, background noise resulted in an effect of Speaker-Age, with participants increasing their looking time more for adult relative to child speech. The type of background noise did not influence this pattern. For male speech, there was an effect of Speaker-Age in the opposite direction, with participants increasing their looking time more for child relative to adult speech. For male speech, real-world background noise resulted in higher increases in target looking for child-specific items. Together, results suggest that child-produced speech may be more difficult to process than female-adult produced speech in noise, and that listeners can use background noise to predict who will speak and what they might speak about under more challenging conditions, such as processing male speech.
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.