Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41523093›Full record

ArticleJournal of cognition2026

Language Comprehension in Background Noise - Effects of Noise Type and Task Modality.

Michaela Socher, Isabella Ström, Josefine Andin, Åsa Elwér, Åsa Wengelin, Elisabeth Ingo

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of cognition, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Michaela SocherFraunhofer Institut of Building Physics, Nobelstr. 12, 70569 Stuttgart, Stuttgart, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7195-9487
Isabella StrömLinköping University, 581 83 Linköping, Linköping, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0000-8334-333X
Josefine AndinLinköping University, 581 83 Linköping, Linköping, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7091-9635
Åsa ElwérLinköping University, 581 83 Linköping, Linköping, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7824-1750
Åsa WengelinUniversity of Gothenburg, Renströmsgatan 6, 405 30 Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6913-5128
Elisabeth IngoLinköping University, 581 83 Linköping, Linköping, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4025-6345

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In school, children often have to read or listen to spoken language while background noise is present. However, previous studies show a negative influence of background noise on reading and listening comprehension, especially in children. These background noise effects are not solely due to masking effects. Two accounts used to explain background noise effects are the interference-by-process account and the renewed view of age-related distraction. The interference-by-process assumes that the overlap of the processes needed for the background noise and the focal task are of importance, while the renewed view of age-related distraction argues that the modality of the focal task needs to be taken into consideration. In this study a total of 125 fifth grade students completed both listening and reading comprehension tasks under three listening conditions: silence, semantic noise and non-semantic noise. We found significantly lower performance for the semantic background noise condition compared to the silent condition. There was no significant interaction between task modality and background noise. These results are broadly consistent with the interference-by-process account but provide no support for the specific modality-based prediction derived from the renewed view of age-related distraction.

Indexed as

AttentionLearningprocessingReadingSentenceSpeech perception

Identifiers

PMID41523093
PMCPMC12785741

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.