Noise condition modulates neural speech tracking, with better decoding of speech in continuous than quiet or intermittent noise¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3 · i1 small
Currency · newest study 2025 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i1 A repeated-measures ANOVA on speech-reconstruction decoding accuracy showed a significant main effect of noise condition, with continuous noise decoded better than quiet (d=0.37) and intermittent (d=0.41) noise. → Levy 2025

Evidence¶

Levy 2025¶

Levy, O., Shadi, T., Korisky, A., Bleichner, M. G., & Zion Golumbic, E. (2025). Differential effects of external noise and situational interest on neurophysiological responses during video based learning. npj Science of Learning. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-025-00392-5

q3 · i1 · causal · r2

Encoding/decoding speech-tracking analysis (n=32) across the three noise conditions: decoding ANOVA was significant [F(2,62)=6.846, p=0.002], with "Cohen’s d=0.37" and "Cohen’s d=0.41" for the printed pairwise comparisons.

"significantly better decoding performance in the continuous noise condition compared to both the quiet condition [t(31) = 3.020, p = 0.007, Cohen’s d=0.37] and the intermittent noise condition [t(31) = 3.362, p = 0.004, Cohen’s d=0.41]."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Auditory Processing — outcome: instruction changes it

Related Claims¶

• High Interest Better Neural Speech Tracking
• Noise Tonic Gsr Intermittent Highest
• Adding construction noise does not significantly affect comprehension accuracy or interest ratings during video learning — related
• Low-interest segments show higher alpha and lower beta power, while noise has no effect on either band — related
• Selective attention improves neural encoding of attended speech envelopes in children aged 7–12 — related
• Older adults show reduced accuracy in severe noise (SNR -5) but perform comparably to younger adults in quiet and moderate noise (SNR 20) — related