Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26217249›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2015

Visual speech discrimination and identification of natural and synthetic consonant stimuli.

Benjamin T Files, Bosco S Tjan, Jintao Jiang, Lynne E Bernstein

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing 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

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Inhibitory TMS over Visual Area V5/MT Disrupts Visual Speech Recognition.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2023
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Acoustic noise and vision differentially warp the auditory categorization of speech.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2019
    Article
  11. Developmental Shifts in Detection and Attention for Auditory, Visual, and Audiovisual Speech.Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR · 2018
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

4 authors.

Benjamin T FilesU.S. Army Research Laboratory, Human Research and Engineering Directorate, Aberdeen Proving Ground MD, USA.
Bosco S TjanDepartment of Psychology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles CA, USA.
Jintao JiangApplications Technology, McLean VA, USA.
Lynne E BernsteinDepartment of Speech and Hearing Science, George Washington University, Washington DC, USA.

Funding

Training in Hearing & Communication NeuroscienceT32DC009975 · NIDCD · UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA · PI Christopher A Shera · 2009 to 2026
$5.0M
Visual Speech Perception and Neural ProcessingR01DC008583 · NIDCD · HOUSE RESEARCH INSTITUTE · PI BERNSTEIN, LYNNE ESTHER · 2007 to 2010
$1.4M
Visual Form-Based Spoken Word ProcessingR21DC012634 · NIDCD · GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI AUER, EDWARD T, BERNSTEIN, LYNNE ESTHER · 2012 to 2013
$427k
Visual Speech Perception and Neural ProcessingR55DC008583 · NIDCD · HOUSE RESEARCH INSTITUTE · PI BERNSTEIN, LYNNE ESTHER · 2007 to 2007
$100k
NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC008583NIDCD NIH HHS R21 DC012634NIDCD NIH HHS R55 DC008583NIDCD NIH HHS T32 DC009975
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

From phonetic features to connected discourse, every level of psycholinguistic structure including prosody can be perceived through viewing the talking face. Yet a longstanding notion in the literature is that visual speech perceptual categories comprise groups of phonemes (referred to as visemes), such as /p, b, m/ and /f, v/, whose internal structure is not informative to the visual speech perceiver. This conclusion has not to our knowledge been evaluated using a psychophysical discrimination paradigm. We hypothesized that perceivers can discriminate the phonemes within typical viseme groups, and that discrimination measured with d-prime (d') and response latency is related to visual stimulus dissimilarities between consonant segments. In Experiment 1, participants performed speeded discrimination for pairs of consonant-vowel spoken nonsense syllables that were predicted to be same, near, or far in their perceptual distances, and that were presented as natural or synthesized video. Near pairs were within-viseme consonants. Natural within-viseme stimulus pairs were discriminated significantly above chance (except for /k/-/h/). Sensitivity (d') increased and response times decreased with distance. Discrimination and identification were superior with natural stimuli, which comprised more phonetic information. We suggest that the notion of the viseme as a unitary perceptual category is incorrect. Experiment 2 probed the perceptual basis for visual speech discrimination by inverting the stimuli. Overall reductions in d' with inverted stimuli but a persistent pattern of larger d' for far than for near stimulus pairs are interpreted as evidence that visual speech is represented by both its motion and configural attributes. The methods and results of this investigation open up avenues for understanding the neural and perceptual bases for visual and audiovisual speech perception and for development of practical applications such as visual lipreading/speechreading speech synthesis.

Indexed as

audiovisual speech perceptiondiscriminationlipreading/speechreadingmotion capturemultisensory perceptionsynthetic visual speechvisemesvisual speech perception

Identifiers

PMID26217249
PMCPMC4499841

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.