ArticleThe European journal of neuroscience2014
A visual or tactile signal makes auditory speech detection more efficient by reducing uncertainty.
Article in The European journal of neuroscience, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Speech-derived haptic stimulation enhances speech recognition in a multi-talker background.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Seeing objects improves our hearing of the sounds they make.Neuroscience of consciousness · 2020Article
- Developmental Shifts in Detection and Attention for Auditory, Visual, and Audiovisual Speech.Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR · 2018Article
- Free viewing of talking faces reveals mouth and eye preferring regions of the human superior temporal sulcus.NeuroImage · 2018Article
- Rethinking Social Cognition in Light of Psychosis: Reciprocal Implications for Cognition and Psychopathology.Clinical psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science · 2017Article
- Congruent Visual Speech Enhances Cortical Entrainment to Continuous Auditory Speech in Noise-Free Conditions.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2015Article
- Visual speech discrimination and identification of natural and synthetic consonant stimuli.Frontiers in psychology · 2015Article
- Audiovisual spoken word training can promote or impede auditory-only perceptual learning: prelingually deafened adults with late-acquired cochlear implants versus normal hearing adults.Frontiers in psychology · 2014Article
- Comparison of informational vs. energetic masking effects on speechreading performance.Frontiers in psychology · 2014Article
- Detection and Attention for Auditory, Visual, and Audiovisual Speech in Children with Hearing Loss.Ear and hearingArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Acoustic speech is easier to detect in noise when the talker can be seen. This finding could be explained by integration of multisensory inputs or refinement of auditory processing from visual guidance. In two experiments, we studied two-interval forced-choice detection of an auditory 'ba' in acoustic noise, paired with various visual and tactile stimuli that were identically presented in the two observation intervals. Detection thresholds were reduced under the multisensory conditions vs. the auditory-only condition, even though the visual and/or tactile stimuli alone could not inform the correct response. Results were analysed relative to an ideal observer for which intrinsic (internal) noise and efficiency were independent contributors to detection sensitivity. Across experiments, intrinsic noise was unaffected by the multisensory stimuli, arguing against the merging (integrating) of multisensory inputs into a unitary speech signal, but sampling efficiency was increased to varying degrees, supporting refinement of knowledge about the auditory stimulus. The steepness of the psychometric functions decreased with increasing sampling efficiency, suggesting that the 'task-irrelevant' visual and tactile stimuli reduced uncertainty about the acoustic signal. Visible speech was not superior for enhancing auditory speech detection. Our results reject multisensory neuronal integration and speech-specific neural processing as explanations for the enhanced auditory speech detection under noisy conditions. Instead, they support a more rudimentary form of multisensory interaction: the otherwise task-irrelevant sensory systems inform the auditory system about when to listen.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.