ArticleTrends in hearing
Real-Time Conversation Comprehension in Younger and Older Adults: The Effects of Noise, Visual Speech, Speaker Switch, and Context.
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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study investigated older and younger adults' conversational speech understanding using an established topic monitoring task to assess real-time semantic processing. Twenty-three younger adults (mean age = 26.5 years) and 19 older adults (mean age = 71.3 years) monitored for topic targets in 24 dialogues (2-3 minutes each). The impact on monitoring response time and accuracy of two message-level factors (when speakers switch; contextual predictability) was assessed while manipulating two signal-level factors (presentation modality; noise level). Results showed that presentation modality affected response times, with faster correct responses for audio-visual versus audio-only presentation, an effect that interacted with age (older adults had a larger visual speech benefit). Noise (0 dB SNR) increased response times and decreased accuracy compared to presentation in quiet. A speaker switch delayed response time to the first target after the switch compared to non-switch targets. When the target occurred relatively soon after a speaker switch, older adults showed a significant switch cost, whereas younger adults did not. Targets that were more predictable from context (low surprisal) had faster response times. In the most challenging listening condition (Audio-only presentation in noise), the effect of contextual predictability for older adults was marginally larger than for younger adults, suggesting greater use of context. These findings highlight the utility of the topic monitoring task for probing conversational speech comprehension across the lifespan.
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.