ArticleJournal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR2022
Beyond Recognition: Visual Contributions to Verbal Working Memory.
Article in Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR, 2022. 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.
- How Hearing Loss and Cochlear Implantation Affect Verbal Working Memory: Evidence From Adolescents.Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeIt is well recognized that adding the visual to the acoustic speech signal improves recognition when the acoustic signal is degraded, but how that visual signal affects postrecognition processes is not so well understood. This study was designed to further elucidate the relationships among auditory and visual codes in working memory, a postrecognition process.
designIn a main experiment, 80 young adults with normal hearing were tested using an immediate serial recall paradigm. Three types of signals were presented (unprocessed speech, vocoded speech, and environmental sounds) in three conditions (audio-only, audio-video with dynamic visual signals, and audio-picture with static visual signals). Three dependent measures were analyzed: (a) magnitude of the recency effect, (b) overall recall accuracy, and (c) response times, to assess cognitive effort. In a follow-up experiment, 30 young adults with normal hearing were tested largely using the same procedures, but with a slight change in order of stimulus presentation.
resultsThe main experiment produced three major findings: (a) unprocessed speech evoked a recency effect of consistent magnitude across conditions; vocoded speech evoked a recency effect of similar magnitude to unprocessed speech only with dynamic visual (lipread) signals; environmental sounds never showed a recency effect. (b) Dynamic and static visual signals enhanced overall recall accuracy to a similar extent, and this enhancement was greater for vocoded speech and environmental sounds than for unprocessed speech. (c) All visual signals reduced cognitive load, except for dynamic visual signals with environmental sounds. The follow-up experiment revealed that dynamic visual (lipread) signals exerted their effect on the vocoded stimuli by enhancing phonological quality.
conclusionsAcoustic and visual signals can combine to enhance working memory operations, but the source of these effects differs for phonological and nonphonological signals. Nonetheless, visual information can support better postrecognition processes for patients with hearing loss.
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.