Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30458532›Full record

ArticleJournal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR2018

Perceptual Organization of Interrupted Speech and Text.

Valeriy Shafiro, Daniel Fogerty, Kimberly Smith, Stanley Sheft

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Auditory grouping is necessary to understand interrupted mosaic speech stimuli.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2022
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Combining partial information from speech and text.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2020
    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.

Valeriy ShafiroDepartment of Communication Disorders & Sciences, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL.
Daniel FogertyDepartment of Communication Sciences & Disorders, University of South Carolina, Columbia.
Kimberly SmithDepartment of Speech Pathology & Audiology, University of South Alabama, Mobile.
Stanley SheftDepartment of Communication Disorders & Sciences, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL.

Funding

Maximizing speech recognition under adverse listening conditionsR01DC015465 · NIDCD · UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA AT COLUMBIA · PI FOGERTY, DANIEL · 2016 to 2020
$1.6M
NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC015465
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: Visual recognition of interrupted text may predict speech intelligibility under adverse listening conditions. This study investigated the nature of the linguistic information and perceptual processes underlying this relationship. Method: To directly compare the perceptual organization of interrupted speech and text, we examined the recognition of spoken and printed sentences interrupted at different rates in 14 adults with normal hearing. The interruption method approximated deletion and retention of rate-specific linguistic information (0.5-64 Hz) in speech by substituting either white space or silent intervals for text or speech in the original sentences. Results: A similar U-shaped pattern of cross-rate variation in performance was observed in both modalities, with minima at 2 Hz. However, at the highest and lowest interruption rates, recognition accuracy was greater for text than speech, whereas the reverse was observed at middle rates. An analysis of word duration and the frequency of word sampling across interruption rates suggested that the location of the function minima was influenced by perceptual reconstruction of whole words. Overall, the findings indicate a high degree of similarity in the perceptual organization of interrupted speech and text. Conclusion: The observed rate-specific variation in the perception of speech and text may potentially affect the degree to which recognition accuracy in one modality is predictive of the other.

Indexed as

Acoustic StimulationAdultHumansPattern Recognition, VisualPerceptual MaskingPhotic StimulationReadingSpeech IntelligibilitySpeech PerceptionYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID30458532
PMCPMC6428238

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.