ArticleLanguage learning2018
Response Errors in Females' and Males' Sentence Lipreading Necessitate Structurally Different Models for Predicting Lipreading Accuracy.
Article in Language learning, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Exploring the effect of cognitive factors in lipreading: The roles of auditory-verbal learning, inhibition, verbal fluency, and visuospatial working memory.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2026Article
- Lipreading a naturalistic narrative in a female population: Neural characteristics shared with listening and reading.Brain and behavior · 2023Article
- Lipreading: A Review of Its Continuing Importance for Speech Recognition With an Acquired Hearing Loss and Possibilities for Effective Training.American journal of audiology · 2022Review
- During Lipreading Training With Sentence Stimuli, Feedback Controls Learning and Generalization to Audiovisual Speech in Noise.American journal of audiology · 2022Article
- Visualization of Speech Perception AnalysisFrontiers in neurology · 2021Article
- 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
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Lipreaders recognize words with phonetically impoverished stimuli, an ability that is generally poor in normal-hearing adults. Individual sentence lipreading trials from 341 young adults were modeled to predict words and phonemes correct in terms of measures of phoneme response dissimilarity (PRD), number of inserted incorrect response phonemes, lipreader gender, and a measure of speech perception in noise. Interactions with lipreaders' gender necessitated structurally different models of males' and females' lipreading. Overall, female lipreaders are more accurate, their ability to recognize words with impoverished or degraded input is consistent across visual and auditory modalities, and they amplify their correct responding through top-down insertion of text. Males' responses suggest that individuals with poorer auditory speech perception in noise amplify their responses by shifting towards including text in their response that is more perceptually discrepant from the stimulus. Attention to gender differences merits attention in future studies that use visual speech stimuli.
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.