↓ Skip to main content

Coping with adversity: Individual differences in the perception of noisy and accented speech

Overview of attention for article published in Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
14 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
51 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
80 Mendeley
Title
Coping with adversity: Individual differences in the perception of noisy and accented speech
Published in
Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, May 2018
DOI 10.3758/s13414-018-1537-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Drew J. McLaughlin, Melissa M. Baese-Berk, Tessa Bent, Stephanie A. Borrie, Kristin J. Van Engen

Abstract

During speech communication, both environmental noise and nonnative accents can create adverse conditions for the listener. Individuals recruit additional cognitive, linguistic, and/or perceptual resources when faced with such challenges. Furthermore, listeners vary in their ability to understand speech in adverse conditions. In the present study, we compared individuals' receptive vocabulary, inhibition, rhythm perception, and working memory with transcription accuracy (i.e., intelligibility scores) for four adverse listening conditions: native speech in speech-shaped noise, native speech with a single-talker masker, nonnative-accented speech in quiet, and nonnative-accented speech in speech-shaped noise. The results showed that intelligibility scores for similar types of adverse listening conditions (i.e., with the same environmental noise or nonnative-accented speech) significantly correlated with one another. Furthermore, receptive vocabulary positively predicted performance globally across adverse listening conditions, and working memory positively predicted performance for the nonnative-accented speech conditions. Taken together, these results indicate that some cognitive resources may be recruited for all adverse listening conditions, while specific additional resources may be engaged when people are faced with certain types of listening challenges.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 80 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 80 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 20%
Researcher 8 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 6 8%
Student > Master 4 5%
Other 14 18%
Unknown 24 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Linguistics 18 23%
Psychology 15 19%
Neuroscience 5 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 5%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 4%
Other 9 11%
Unknown 26 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 03 August 2018.
All research outputs
#3,554,381
of 25,081,505 outputs
Outputs from Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics
#124
of 1,803 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#68,659
of 333,968 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics
#3
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,081,505 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,803 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its peers.
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 333,968 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.