ArticleBrain sciences2023
The Effect of Cued-Speech (CS) Perception on Auditory Processing in Typically Hearing (TH) Individuals Who Are Either Naïve or Experienced CS Producers.
Article in Brain sciences, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Gaze dynamics of cued speech perception.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Seeing speech: Neural mechanisms of cued speech perception in prelingually deaf and hearing users.Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2025Article
- Advances in Understanding the Phenomena and Processing in Audiovisual Speech Perception.Brain sciences · 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Cued Speech (CS) is a communication system that uses manual gestures to facilitate lipreading. In this study, we investigated how CS information interacts with natural speech using Event-Related Potential (ERP) analyses in French-speaking, typically hearing adults (TH) who were either naïve or experienced CS producers. The audiovisual (AV) presentation of lipreading information elicited an amplitude attenuation of the entire N1 and P2 complex in both groups, accompanied by N1 latency facilitation in the group of CS producers. Adding CS gestures to lipread information increased the magnitude of effects observed at the N1 time window, but did not enhance P2 amplitude attenuation. Interestingly, presenting CS gestures without lipreading information yielded distinct response patterns depending on participants' experience with the system. In the group of CS producers, AV perception of CS gestures facilitated the early stage of speech processing, while in the group of naïve participants, it elicited a latency delay at the P2 time window. These results suggest that, for experienced CS users, the perception of gestures facilitates early stages of speech processing, but when people are not familiar with the system, the perception of gestures impacts the efficiency of phonological decoding.
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.