Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24400652›Full record

ArticleThe European journal of neuroscience2014

A visual or tactile signal makes auditory speech detection more efficient by reducing uncertainty.

Bosco S Tjan, Ewen Chao, Lynne E Bernstein

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Developmental Shifts in Detection and Attention for Auditory, Visual, and Audiovisual Speech.Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR · 2018
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Rethinking Social Cognition in Light of Psychosis: Reciprocal Implications for Cognition and Psychopathology.Clinical psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science · 2017
    Article
  6. 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 · 2015
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Bosco S TjanDepartment of Psychology, Neuroscience Graduate Program, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, 90089, USA.
Ewen Chao
Lynne E Bernstein

Funding

Form Processing in Peripheral VisionR01EY017707 · NEI · UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA · PI CHEN, NIHONG, CHUNG, SUSANA T · 2008 to 2018
$3.2M
Multisensory Processing: Plasticity & Accommodation to a Sensory ProsthesisR01DC008308 · NIDCD · HOUSE RESEARCH INSTITUTE · PI BERNSTEIN, LYNNE ESTHER · 2006 to 2010
$2.0M
Visual Speech Perception and Neural ProcessingR01DC008583 · NIDCD · HOUSE RESEARCH INSTITUTE · PI BERNSTEIN, LYNNE ESTHER · 2007 to 2010
$1.4M
Visual Speech Perception and Neural ProcessingR55DC008583 · NIDCD · HOUSE RESEARCH INSTITUTE · PI BERNSTEIN, LYNNE ESTHER · 2007 to 2007
$100k
NEI NIH HHS R01 EY017707NIDCD NIH HHS DC008308NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC008308NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC008583NIDCD NIH HHS R01S DC008583NIDCD NIH HHS R55 DC008583
6 · The paper itself

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

Touch PerceptionUncertaintyVisual PerceptionAdultFemaleHumansMaleModels, NeurologicalSpeech PerceptionTouchVision, Ocularideal-observer analysismultisensory enhancementspeech detection

Identifiers

PMID24400652
PMCPMC3997613

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.