ArticleAnnual review of linguistics2019
Cross-modal effects in speech perception.
Article in Annual review of linguistics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Isolating fast and slow flows in three-dimensional fluid dynamics.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Embodied Singing: Dual Role of Interoception in Vocal Expertise and Musical Competence.Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences · 2025Article
- Variations in unisensory speech perception explain interindividual differences in McGurk illusion susceptibility.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2025Article
- The effect of native language and bilingualism on multimodal perception in speech: A study of audio-aerotactile integrationa).The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2024Article
- Pitch-Luminance Crossmodal Correspondence in the Baby Chick: An Investigation on Predisposed and Learned Processes.Vision (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Integration of somatosensory and motor-related information in the auditory system.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2022Review
- Neural indicators of articulator-specific sensorimotor influences on infant speech perception.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2021Article
- Sound-Action Symbolism.Frontiers in psychology · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Speech research during recent years has moved progressively away from its traditional focus on audition toward a more multisensory approach. In addition to audition and vision, many somatosenses including proprioception, pressure, vibration and aerotactile sensation are all highly relevant modalities for experiencing and/or conveying speech. In this article, we review both long-standing cross-modal effects stemming from decades of audiovisual speech research as well as new findings related to somatosensory effects. Cross-modal effects in speech perception to date are found to be constrained by temporal congruence and signal relevance, but appear to be unconstrained by spatial congruence. Far from taking place in a one-, two- or even three-dimensional space, the literature reveals that speech occupies a highly multidimensional sensory space. We argue that future research in cross-modal effects should expand to consider each of these modalities both separately and in combination with other modalities in speech.
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.