ArticleTrends in hearing
Voice Familiarization Training Improves Speech Intelligibility and Reduces Listening Effort.
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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Understanding speech among competing speech poses a substantial challenge. In these environments, familiar voices-including naturally familiar (e.g., friends, partners) and lab-trained voices-are more intelligible than unfamiliar voices. Yet, whether familiar voices also require less effort to understand is currently unknown. We trained 20 participants to become familiar with three voices, then tested listening effort during a speech intelligibility task. During familiarization and training, participants were exposed to three talkers for different lengths of time, either speaking 88, 166, or 478 sentences ("Least Familiar," "Moderately Familiar," or "Most Familiar" voice, respectively). During each trial of the speech intelligibility task, two competing sentences were presented at a target-to-masker ratio (TMR) of -6 or +3 dB. Participants reported target sentences that were spoken by trained or by novel, unfamiliar talkers. We assessed effort using self-reported ratings and physiologically, using pupil dilation. We found that self-report scores were more sensitive than pupil dilation to differences in TMR, with lower self-reported effort at +3 than -6 dB TMR. The two measures may also be differentially sensitive to the extent of training. We found lower self-reported effort for all three trained voices over unfamiliar voices, with no differences among the trained voices, whereas pupil dilation was only lower for the voice that had been trained for the longest. Thus, both self-report scores and pupil dilation showed advantages for the voice that was trained for the longest (∼1 h), but self-report scores additionally showed reduced effort even following relatively short durations of training (<10 min).
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.