Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31283529›Full record

ArticleEar and hearing

Psychobiological Responses Reveal Audiovisual Noise Differentially Challenges Speech Recognition.

Gavin M Bidelman, Bonnie Brown, Kelsey Mankel, Caitlin Nelms Price

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ear and hearing. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 19% of its field
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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Acoustic noise and vision differentially warp the auditory categorization of speech.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2019
    Article
  3. Article
  4. 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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Gavin M BidelmanSchool of Communication Sciences and Disorders, University of Memphis, Memphis, Tennessee, USA.
Bonnie BrownSchool of Communication Sciences and Disorders, University of Memphis, Memphis, Tennessee, USA.
Kelsey MankelSchool of Communication Sciences and Disorders, University of Memphis, Memphis, Tennessee, USA.
Caitlin Nelms PriceSchool of Communication Sciences and Disorders, University of Memphis, Memphis, Tennessee, USA.
University of Memphis · US

Funding

Neuroimaging biomarkers of speech processing deficits in MCIR01DC016267 · NIDCD · UNIVERSITY OF MEMPHIS · PI BIDELMAN, GAVIN M. · 2018 to 2022
$2.1M
NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC016267
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesIn noisy environments, listeners benefit from both hearing and seeing a talker, demonstrating audiovisual (AV) cues enhance speech-in-noise (SIN) recognition. Here, we examined the relative contribution of auditory and visual cues to SIN perception and the strategies used by listeners to decipher speech in noise interference(s).

designNormal-hearing listeners (n = 22) performed an open-set speech recognition task while viewing audiovisual TIMIT sentences presented under different combinations of signal degradation including visual (AVn), audio (AnV), or multimodal (AnVn) noise. Acoustic and visual noises were matched in physical signal-to-noise ratio. Eyetracking monitored participants' gaze to different parts of a talker's face during SIN perception.

resultsAs expected, behavioral performance for clean sentence recognition was better for A-only and AV compared to V-only speech. Similarly, with noise in the auditory channel (AnV and AnVn speech), performance was aided by the addition of visual cues of the talker regardless of whether the visual channel contained noise, confirming a multimodal benefit to SIN recognition. The addition of visual noise (AVn) obscuring the talker's face had little effect on speech recognition by itself. Listeners' eye gaze fixations were biased toward the eyes (decreased at the mouth) whenever the auditory channel was compromised. Fixating on the eyes was negatively associated with SIN recognition performance. Eye gazes on the mouth versus eyes of the face also depended on the gender of the talker.

conclusionsCollectively, results suggest listeners (1) depend heavily on the auditory over visual channel when seeing and hearing speech and (2) alter their visual strategy from viewing the mouth to viewing the eyes of a talker with signal degradations, which negatively affects speech perception.

Indexed as

Speech PerceptionFixation, OcularHearingHumansNoiseSpeech

Identifiers

PMID31283529
PMCPMC6939137
OpenAlexW2958105300

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.