Purpose: Understanding speech in background noise is a communicative task that may present unique challenges to autistic communicators. Differences in sensory processing may affect where listeners choose to sit in noisy environments and how well they understand target speakers at different positions relative to maskers. Method: Thirty young adults who reported varying levels of autistic traits participated in a listening task in an acoustic simulation of a restaurant environment. Participants reported their preferred seat at each of four simulated tables. Their speech recognition was tested at each position in the simulated restaurant. Speech recognition thresholds were analyzed with a linear mixed-effects model to evaluate the effects of position, hearing sensitivity, and degree of autistic traits. Results: Data analyses indicated the significant effects of table, seat, and the interaction of table and seat on speech recognition thresholds. Although autistic traits did not significantly contribute to the model as a main effect, there was a significant interaction of autistic traits with position. In general, participants who self-reported higher levels of autistic traits had greater variability of thresholds (i.e., scores further from the mean) than did participants who self-reported lower levels of autistic traits. Position preferences did not differ between participants with low and moderate–high autistic traits. Conclusions: Spatial position had the most meaningful influence on speech recognition thresholds. Some individuals with higher levels of autistic traits performed better than average, while others struggled to recognize speech in noise, and this pattern differed across positions. The substantial heterogeneity of the autistic population should be considered when interpreting these results and planning for clinical and social activities that involve autistic people. Supplemental Material: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.31302148
Swann et al. (Thu,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: