Trial reportScientific reports2017
Concurrent talking in immersive virtual reality: on the dominance of visual speech cues.
Trial report in Scientific reports, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Speaker-story mapping as a method to evaluate audiovisual scene analysis in a virtual classroom scenario.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
- Immersive interfaces for clinical applications: current status and future perspective.Frontiers in neurorobotics · 2024Review
- Feasibility of Virtual Reality Audiological Testing: Prospective Study.JMIR serious games · 2021Article
- Rethinking GPS navigation: creating cognitive maps through auditory clues.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Temporal contrast effects in human speech perception are immune to selective attention.Scientific reports · 2020Article
- Sensitivity of occipito-temporal cortex, premotor and Broca's areas to visible speech gestures in a familiar language.PloS one · 2020Article
- The Influence of Auditory Cues on Bodily and Movement Perception.Frontiers in psychology · 2019Review
- Generic HRTFs May be Good Enough in Virtual Reality. Improving Source Localization through Cross-Modal Plasticity.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2018Article
- 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Humans are good at selectively listening to specific target conversations, even in the presence of multiple concurrent speakers. In our research, we study how auditory-visual cues modulate this selective listening. We do so by using immersive Virtual Reality technologies with spatialized audio. Exposing 32 participants to an Information Masking Task with concurrent speakers, we find significantly more errors in the decision-making processes triggered by asynchronous audiovisual speech cues. More precisely, the results show that lips on the Target speaker matched to a secondary (Mask) speaker's audio severely increase the participants' comprehension error rates. In a control experiment (n = 20), we further explore the influences of the visual modality over auditory selective attention. The results show a dominance of visual-speech cues, which effectively turn the Mask into the Target and vice-versa. These results reveal a disruption of selective attention that is triggered by bottom-up multisensory integration. The findings are framed in the sensory perception and cognitive neuroscience theories. The VR setup is validated by replicating previous results in this literature in a supplementary experiment.
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.