ArticleTrends in hearing
Unaided and Aided Speech Intelligibility in a Real and Virtual Acoustic Environment.
Article in Trends in hearing. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Reverberation exacerbates effects of interruption on auditory spatial selective attention.JASA express letters · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The discrepancy between the hearing aid benefit estimated in standard audiological tests, like speech audiometry, and the perceived benefit in daily life has led to interest in methods better reflecting real-world performance. In contrast to audiological tests, everyday communication commonly takes place in enclosed spaces with acoustic reflections and multiple sound sources, including sounds from adjoining rooms through open doors. This study investigates speech recognition thresholds (SRTs) with a sentence test in a laboratory environment resembling an average German living room with an adjacent kitchen. Additionally, acoustic simulations of the environment were presented in a large-scale (86) and small-scale (4) loudspeaker array, with the latter feasible for a clinical context. Measurements with normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners were conducted using different spatial target positions and a fixed masker position. One of the target positions was within the adjacent kitchen without line-of-sight to the sound source, representing a challenging acoustic configuration. Hearing-impaired listeners performed the measurements with and without their hearing aids. SRTs were compared between different presentation settings and to those measured in standard free-field audiological spatial configurations (S0N0, S0N90). An auditory model was employed for further analysis. Results show that SRTs in the simulated living room environment with 86 and 4 loudspeakers matched the real environment, even for aided listeners, indicating that virtual acoustics representations can reflect real-world listening performance. When signal-to-noise ratios were normalized, the measured hearing aid benefit did not differ significantly between the standard audiological spatial configuration S0N90 and any spatial configuration in the living room environment.
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.