Summary: An international large -scale study has confirmed that the ability to detect background sounds varies significantly from person to person and depends on the previous noise. When replicating a 10 -year study with 149 participants in 25 laboratories in 10 countries, researchers found consistent results that support the original findings.
The sensitivity of people to detect a signal in the midst of noise is not only variable, but influences the sounds they heard just before. This fundamental research helps to explain why some people fight more than others to follow conversations in noisy environments.
Key facts:
Individual variation: The ability of people to detect noise sounds varies widely. Condext Matters: What was heard just before affects the perception of subsequent sounds.
Source: Northeastern University
A study led by the professor of the Northeastern University Jonathan Peelle with researchers from all over the world has confirmed that the ability of people to detect background sounds varies from person to person, and is influenced by the noise that occurred before the sounds.
Peelle’s large -scale replication of a 10 -year study included 25 laboratories in 10 countries and included 149 participants.
The findings will be published in the scientific journal Royal Society Open Science.
About a decade ago, research work suggested that some people are better to choose background sounds than others, and that this ability depends on the surrounding noise. But the study findings were based on data from only five participants, each completing a five -hour task.
Peelle, science and communication disorders professor in Northeastern, wanted to see if he could expand this study and understand how listeners understand speech in noise.
“This was a fundamental part of the audition and how we perceive the world,” said Peelle, who studies how people understand speech in noise.
“The fact that the perception of people is affected by that was really intriguing and linked to many other ideas about how we listen and understand the speech.”
Other researchers had the same reaction that Peelle when this study came out and wanted to try to expand it. But he found that people who tried to replicate the original study had fought.
Upon realizing a replication, he would have to involve other laboratories given the scale, he and his team opened the project to other research teams around the world. They also worked through the original document and talked to the team behind him to make sure they had all the necessary details to replicate the study.
“We obtained their sounds and their code to really understand what they did and if we were doing something differently,” Peelle said.
“Once we were convinced that we were working, we called for other laboratories to participate and … we were able to do a much more comprehensive job. In the end, we discovered some reasons why we could not replicate their study, and the main findings remained. But we had to jump on many obstacles.”
The study caused the participants to complete a series of tests over the course of five sessions that involved hearing a sequence of noise that would become stronger or softer, Peelle said. The noise would reach a constant volume and a whistle would enter. The participants would have to indicate when they heard the beep, which appeared half the time.
The objective was to determine at what extent people can begin to distinguish certain sounds and make sense of them.
The original authors of the study shared their code and data, so the study could be as closely as possible, even the buttons that people had to press.
One way of thinking about this is that if you are in a noisy cafeteria and you have problems listening to a person with whom you have a conversation, it is easier for some of his words to break your conscience than others, “Peelle said.
“This was a really simplified version of that task. We are just asking, did you detect a beep and a noise? If we can better understand how our brains understand this really simple, you can tell us more about how we have conversations in a cafeteria.”
The expanded study confirmed the results of the original: the ability of people to perceive sounds changes depending on what they just heard. The study also showed that different people have different levels of skill when it comes to measuring this.
“Some people are much more sensitive to this effect than others, which is potentially useful if we want to use this as a clinical diagnostic tool,” he said. “We know that there is variability and effect. There are some people who really do not seem (show) this effect.”
But on a larger scale, the study also showed the value of collaboration, Peelle said.
“The exciting part for me was the collaborative nature of science (and) how enthusiastic people were to help with this,” he added.
“We were able to obtain 25 teams from 10 countries to help and gather this type of big group effort. We have 69 authors in the role we had to coordinate, and in the end, I feel that we go out with a much better product.”
On this auditory neuroscience research news
Author: Erin Kayata
Source: Northeastern University
CONTACT: ERIN KAYATA – NORTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY
Image: The image is accredited to Neuroscience News
Original Research: The findings will be published in Royal Society Open Science
