ArticleFrontiers in psychology2015
Visual speech discrimination and identification of natural and synthetic consonant stimuli.
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.
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
15 citing papers in PubMed.
- A representation of abstract linguistic categories in the visual system underlies successful lipreading.NeuroImage · 2023Article
- Inhibitory TMS over Visual Area V5/MT Disrupts Visual Speech Recognition.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2023Article
- Long-term phonemic representations become audiovisual by mid-childhood.Neuropsychologia · 2023Article
- Modality-Specific Perceptual Learning of Vocoded Auditory versus Lipread Speech: Different Effects of Prior Information.Brain sciences · 2023Article
- Lipreading a naturalistic narrative in a female population: Neural characteristics shared with listening and reading.Brain and behavior · 2023Article
- Lipreading: A Review of Its Continuing Importance for Speech Recognition With an Acquired Hearing Loss and Possibilities for Effective Training.American journal of audiology · 2022Review
- During Lipreading Training With Sentence Stimuli, Feedback Controls Learning and Generalization to Audiovisual Speech in Noise.American journal of audiology · 2022Article
- Influence of linguistic properties and hearing impairment on visual speech perception skills in the German language.PloS one · 2022Article
- Article
- Acoustic noise and vision differentially warp the auditory categorization of speech.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2019Article
- Developmental Shifts in Detection and Attention for Auditory, Visual, and Audiovisual Speech.Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR · 2018Article
- Response Errors in Females' and Males' Sentence Lipreading Necessitate Structurally Different Models for Predicting Lipreading Accuracy.Language learning · 2018Article
- Visual speech fills in both discrimination and identification of non-intact auditory speech in children.Journal of child language · 2018Article
- Visual speech alters the discrimination and identification of non-intact auditory speech in children with hearing loss.International journal of pediatric otorhinolaryngology · 2017Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
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
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.