ArticleEar and hearing
Psychobiological Responses Reveal Audiovisual Noise Differentially Challenges Speech Recognition.
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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effects of training and using an audio-tactile sensory substitution device on speech-in-noise understanding.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Acoustic noise and vision differentially warp the auditory categorization of speech.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2019Article
- Neural Correlates of Enhanced Audiovisual Processing in the Bilingual Brain.Neuroscience · 2019Article
- Autonomic Nervous System Correlates of Speech Categorization Revealed Through Pupillometry.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2019Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
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
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.