ArticleFrontiers in neuroscience2022
Multisensory benefits for speech recognition in noisy environments.
Article in Frontiers in neuroscience, 2022. 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.
- Enhancing speech recall and reducing cognitive load through rhythmic amplitude modulated vibrotactile stimulation in noise.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Spectral peak picking improves tactile speech perception.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Vibrotactile speech cues are associated with enhanced auditory processing in middle and superior temporal gyri.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Exposure to vibrotactile music improves audiometric performances in individuals with cochlear implants.Scientific reports · 2025Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A series of our previous studies explored the use of an abstract visual representation of the amplitude envelope cues from target sentences to benefit speech perception in complex listening environments. The purpose of this study was to expand this auditory-visual speech perception to the tactile domain. Twenty adults participated in speech recognition measurements in four different sensory modalities (AO, auditory-only; AV, auditory-visual; AT, auditory-tactile; AVT, auditory-visual-tactile). The target sentences were fixed at 65 dB sound pressure level and embedded within a simultaneous speech-shaped noise masker of varying degrees of signal-to-noise ratios (-7, -5, -3, -1, and 1 dB SNR). The amplitudes of both abstract visual and vibrotactile stimuli were temporally synchronized with the target speech envelope for comparison. Average results showed that adding temporally-synchronized multimodal cues to the auditory signal did provide significant improvements in word recognition performance across all three multimodal stimulus conditions (AV, AT, and AVT), especially at the lower SNR levels of -7, -5, and -3 dB for both male (8-20% improvement) and female (5-25% improvement) talkers. The greatest improvement in word recognition performance (15-19% improvement for males and 14-25% improvement for females) was observed when both visual and tactile cues were integrated (AVT). Another interesting finding in this study is that temporally synchronized abstract visual and vibrotactile stimuli additively stack in their influence on speech recognition performance. Our findings suggest that a multisensory integration process in speech perception requires salient temporal cues to enhance speech recognition ability in noisy environments.
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.