Speech-in-noise working-memory studies are routinely underpowered with null-inclusive confidence intervals

Evidence

Correlation coefficients in the surveyed studies are broadly distributed, spanning almost half of the possible range of r values (i.e., from ‑0.29 to 0.58). Confidence intervals (CIs) are generally large and include the null hypothesis in 21/25 and 24/25 cases for CIs of 95 and 99 %, respectively, suggesting that these studies are not appropriately powered. For the relatively small number of studies included in this survey, there is no consistent trend for stronger correlations in more complex and/or informationally masking backgrounds or at lower SNRs, presumably corresponding to more adverse listening conditions. — Dijk, Pim van, Physiology, Psychoacoustics and…, 1136

Categorization

• XREF: Connects to replication-crisis literature on low-powered psychology studies and the p-hacking incentive structure that follows from them.
• SEED: An angle: the contradiction between this null result and the huge research investment in WM-as-predictor for hearing aid outcomes could make a skeptical methods essay.