ArticleJASA express letters2026
Matching laboratory and real-world listening environments with ecological momentary assessment improves prediction of speech perception.
Article in JASA express letters, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Laboratory speech-in-noise measures fail to predict real-world listening performance. This study tested whether matching laboratory to real-world environments using self-reported noise sources from ecological momentary assessment (EMA) improves predictions. Speech intelligibility and listening effort were measured in virtual acoustic environments in 51 normal-hearing adults, who then self-rated both via EMA for 1 week. Laboratory intelligibility predicted real-world intelligibility only when laboratory and real-world environments were matched. Effort results were not significant. Findings suggest that environment-specific laboratory testing improves ecological validity of intelligibility measures, though environment matching explained only 1.1% of variance in real-world ratings, with individual differences accounting for substantially more.
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.