ArticleBrain and behavior2023
Lipreading a naturalistic narrative in a female population: Neural characteristics shared with listening and reading.
Article in Brain and behavior, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Neural mechanisms of lipreading in the Polish-speaking population: effects of linguistic complexity and sex differences.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Lipreading a naturalistic narrative in a female population: Neural characteristics shared with listening and reading.Brain and behavior · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionFew of us are skilled lipreaders while most struggle with the task. Neural substrates that enable comprehension of connected natural speech via lipreading are not yet well understood.
methodsWe used a data-driven approach to identify brain areas underlying the lipreading of an 8-min narrative with participants whose lipreading skills varied extensively (range 6-100%, mean = 50.7%). The participants also listened to and read the same narrative. The similarity between individual participants' brain activity during the whole narrative, within and between conditions, was estimated by a voxel-wise comparison of the Blood Oxygenation Level Dependent (BOLD) signal time courses.
resultsInter-subject correlation (ISC) of the time courses revealed that lipreading, listening to, and reading the narrative were largely supported by the same brain areas in the temporal, parietal and frontal cortices, precuneus, and cerebellum. Additionally, listening to and reading connected naturalistic speech particularly activated higher-level linguistic processing in the parietal and frontal cortices more consistently than lipreading, probably paralleling the limited understanding obtained via lip-reading. Importantly, higher lipreading test score and subjective estimate of comprehension of the lipread narrative was associated with activity in the superior and middle temporal cortex.
conclusionsOur new data illustrates that findings from prior studies using well-controlled repetitive speech stimuli and stimulus-driven data analyses are also valid for naturalistic connected speech. Our results might suggest an efficient use of brain areas dealing with phonological processing in skilled lipreaders.
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.