MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2042957170 · doi:10.1097/aud.0b013e318228036a

The Influence of Semantically Related and Unrelated Text Cues on the Intelligibility of Sentences in Noise

2011· article· en· W2042957170 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEar and Hearing · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicHearing Loss and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSentencePsychologyPerceptionIntelligibility (philosophy)Cue-dependent forgettingSpeech perceptionSensory cueCognitive psychologySpeech recognitionStimulus (psychology)Computer scienceNatural language processing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: In two experiments with different subject groups, we explored the relationship between semantic context and intelligibility by examining the influence of visually presented, semantically related, and unrelated three-word text cues on perception of spoken sentences in stationary noise across a range of speech-to-noise ratios (SNRs). In addition, in Experiment (Exp) 2, we explored the relationship between individual differences in cognitive factors and the effect of the cues on speech intelligibility. DESIGN: In Exp 1, cues had been generated by participants themselves in a previous test session (own) or by someone else (alien). These cues were either appropriate for that sentence (match) or for a different sentence (mismatch). A condition with nonword cues, generated by the experimenter, served as a control. Experimental sentences were presented at three SNRs (dB SNR) corresponding to the entirely correct repetition of 29%, 50%, or 71% of sentences (speech reception thresholds; SRTs). In Exp 2, semantically matching or mismatching cues and nonword cues were presented before sentences at SNRs corresponding to SRTs of 16% and 29%. The participants in Exp 2 also performed tests of verbal working memory capacity and the ability to read partially masked text. RESULTS: In Exp 1, matching cues improved perception relative to the nonword and mismatching cues, with largest benefits at the SNR corresponding to 29% performance in the SRT task. Mismatching cues did not impair speech perception relative to the nonword cue condition, and no difference in the effect of own and alien matching cues was observed. In Exp 2, matching cues improved speech perception as measured using both the percentage of correctly reported words and the percentage of entirely correctly reported sentences. Mismatching cues reduced the percentage of repeated words (but not the sentence-based scores) compared with the nonword cue condition. Working memory capacity and ability to read partly masked sentences were positively associated with the number of sentences repeated entirely correctly in the mismatch condition at the 29% SNR. CONCLUSIONS: In difficult listening conditions, both relevant and irrelevant semantic context can influence speech perception in noise. High working memory capacity and good linguistic skills are associated with a greater ability to inhibit irrelevant context when uncued sentence intelligibility is around 29% correct.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.418
Threshold uncertainty score0.166

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.050
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.229 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it