↓ Skip to main content

Auditory and Non-Auditory Contributions for Unaided Speech Recognition in Noise as a Function of Hearing Aid Use

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
83 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Auditory and Non-Auditory Contributions for Unaided Speech Recognition in Noise as a Function of Hearing Aid Use
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, February 2017
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00219
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anja Gieseler, Maike A. S. Tahden, Christiane M. Thiel, Kirsten C. Wagener, Markus Meis, Hans Colonius

Abstract

Differences in understanding speech in noise among hearing-impaired individuals cannot be explained entirely by hearing thresholds alone, suggesting the contribution of other factors beyond standard auditory ones as derived from the audiogram. This paper reports two analyses addressing individual differences in the explanation of unaided speech-in-noise performance among n = 438 elderly hearing-impaired listeners (mean = 71.1 ± 5.8 years). The main analysis was designed to identify clinically relevant auditory and non-auditory measures for speech-in-noise prediction using auditory (audiogram, categorical loudness scaling) and cognitive tests (verbal-intelligence test, screening test of dementia), as well as questionnaires assessing various self-reported measures (health status, socio-economic status, and subjective hearing problems). Using stepwise linear regression analysis, 62% of the variance in unaided speech-in-noise performance was explained, with measures Pure-tone average (PTA), Age, and Verbal intelligence emerging as the three most important predictors. In the complementary analysis, those individuals with the same hearing loss profile were separated into hearing aid users (HAU) and non-users (NU), and were then compared regarding potential differences in the test measures and in explaining unaided speech-in-noise recognition. The groupwise comparisons revealed significant differences in auditory measures and self-reported subjective hearing problems, while no differences in the cognitive domain were found. Furthermore, groupwise regression analyses revealed that Verbal intelligence had a predictive value in both groups, whereas Age and PTA only emerged significant in the group of hearing aid NU.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 83 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 83 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 18%
Student > Master 13 16%
Researcher 12 14%
Student > Bachelor 8 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 4%
Other 9 11%
Unknown 23 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 11 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 10 12%
Engineering 8 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 8%
Neuroscience 6 7%
Other 13 16%
Unknown 28 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 February 2017.
All research outputs
#15,708,425
of 23,344,526 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#19,318
of 31,066 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#198,443
of 311,545 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#363
of 486 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,344,526 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 31,066 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.6. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 311,545 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 486 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.