ArticleTrends in hearing
Advantages of Fluctuating Noise for Measuring Speech Intelligibility in Listeners With Hearing Loss.
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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Measures of speech intelligibility in noise show limited correspondence with difficulties people with hearing loss report from daily life. This mismatch suggests that standard measurement conditions do not sufficiently capture aspects that are relevant for speech perception, such as dip listening and spatial release from masking. In the present study we developed and evaluated a test condition that incorporates these aspects and compared it with a standard condition. Speech intelligibility was measured in 100 participants with normal hearing (NH, N=17) and hearing loss (HL, N=83) ranging from mild to severe. Measurements were conducted using the German matrix sentence test (OLSA) in the standard condition with frontal presentation of stationary noise co-located with the target speech, and the proposed condition with fluctuating, speech-like maskers spatially separated (±60°) from the target. Stimuli were presented via headphones using virtual acoustics. Tests were performed unaided and with individualized amplification. The proposed condition revealed reduced speech intelligibility also for listeners with HL that showed close-to-normal speech intelligibility in the standard condition. With individualized amplification, more listeners with HL showed reduced speech intelligibility compared to NH listeners than in the standard condition. Benefit of amplification varied widely across individuals with similar hearing thresholds, with some listeners showing little or no benefit. The advantages of the proposed condition were driven by masker fluctuations rather than by spatial separation of sound sources. These findings demonstrate that speech intelligibility measurements incorporating fluctuating maskers provide potentially relevant information beyond standard assessments and can support a more individualized assessment of hearing loss.
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.