ArticlePloS one2022
Influence of linguistic properties and hearing impairment on visual speech perception skills in the German language.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Reliable Web-Based Auditory Cognitive Testing: Observational Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Observational
- The impact of visual information in speech perception for individuals with hearing loss: a mini review.Frontiers in psychology · 2024Review
- Lipreading a naturalistic narrative in a female population: Neural characteristics shared with listening and reading.Brain and behavior · 2023Article
- Cortical tracking of formant modulations derived from silently presented lip movements and its decline with age.Cerebral cortex (New York, N.Y. : 1991) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Visual input is crucial for understanding speech under noisy conditions, but there are hardly any tools to assess the individual ability to lipread. With this study, we wanted to (1) investigate how linguistic characteristics of language on the one hand and hearing impairment on the other hand have an impact on lipreading abilities and (2) provide a tool to assess lipreading abilities for German speakers. 170 participants (22 prelingually deaf) completed the online assessment, which consisted of a subjective hearing impairment scale and silent videos in which different item categories (numbers, words, and sentences) were spoken. The task for our participants was to recognize the spoken stimuli just by visual inspection. We used different versions of one test and investigated the impact of item categories, word frequency in the spoken language, articulation, sentence frequency in the spoken language, sentence length, and differences between speakers on the recognition score. We found an effect of item categories, articulation, sentence frequency, and sentence length on the recognition score. With respect to hearing impairment we found that higher subjective hearing impairment is associated with higher test score. We did not find any evidence that prelingually deaf individuals show enhanced lipreading skills over people with postlingual acquired hearing impairment. However, we see an interaction with education only in the prelingual deaf, but not in the population with postlingual acquired hearing loss. This points to the fact that there are different factors contributing to enhanced lipreading abilities depending on the onset of hearing impairment (prelingual vs. postlingual). Overall, lipreading skills vary strongly in the general population independent of hearing impairment. Based on our findings we constructed a new and efficient lipreading assessment tool (SaLT) that can be used to test behavioral lipreading abilities in the German speaking population.
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.