ArticleJournal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR2018
Developmental Shifts in Detection and Attention for Auditory, Visual, and Audiovisual Speech.
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
Purpose: Successful speech processing depends on our ability to detect and integrate multisensory cues, yet there is minimal research on multisensory speech detection and integration by children. To address this need, we studied the development of speech detection for auditory (A), visual (V), and audiovisual (AV) input. Method: Participants were 115 typically developing children clustered into age groups between 4 and 14 years. Speech detection (quantified by response times [RTs]) was determined for 1 stimulus, /buh/, presented in A, V, and AV modes (articulating vs. static facial conditions). Performance was analyzed not only in terms of traditional mean RTs but also in terms of the faster versus slower RTs (defined by the 1st vs. 3rd quartiles of RT distributions). These time regions were conceptualized respectively as reflecting optimal detection with efficient focused attention versus less optimal detection with inefficient focused attention due to attentional lapses. Results: Mean RTs indicated better detection (a) of multisensory AV speech than A speech only in 4- to 5-year-olds and (b) of A and AV inputs than V input in all age groups. The faster RTs revealed that AV input did not improve detection in any group. The slower RTs indicated that (a) the processing of silent V input was significantly faster for the articulating than static face and (b) AV speech or facial input significantly minimized attentional lapses in all groups except 6- to 7-year-olds (a peaked U-shaped curve). Apparently, the AV benefit observed for mean performance in 4- to 5-year-olds arose from effects of attention. Conclusions: The faster RTs indicated that AV input did not enhance detection in any group, but the slower RTs indicated that AV speech and dynamic V speech (mouthing) significantly minimized attentional lapses and thus did influence performance. Overall, A and AV inputs were detected consistently faster than V input; this result endorsed stimulus-bound auditory processing by these children.
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.