ArticlePloS one2026
Audio-visual speech-in-noise tests for evaluating speech reception thresholds: A scoping review.
Article in PloS one, 2026. 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the advancements in speech intelligibility testing over the recent decades, with a particular emphasis on the development of audiovisual speech in noise tests that incorporate both auditory and visual modalities for the measurement of speech recognition thresholds.
designA scoping review was conducted systematically to examine the existing literature on speech intelligibility testing methods. Following comprehensive screening process, studies were selected for detailed analysis, focusing on audiovisual integration and potential for remote or automated administration within studies methodologies. STUDY SAMPLE: The review encompassed 11 scholarly articles that investigated diverse approaches to speech intelligibility testing.
resultsThe analysis revealed variability in the accuracy and reliability of speech intelligibility testing methods. Although certain methods demonstrated efficacy in incorporating audiovisual cues, none of the reviewed studies included provisions for remote administration, thereby necessitating the presence of a clinician for test execution. This limitation underscores the imperative for further research development of remote testing methodologies that leverage audiovisual technologies to assess speech in noise.
conclusionsThe findings of this review underscore the critical need for advancement in speech intelligibility testing methodologies particularly integrating audiovisual components and enabling remote administration. The development in this domain holds significant potential to enhance the assessment and implementation of assistive technologies for individuals with hearing impairments.
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.