Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37553414›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2023

Stable eye versus mouth preference in a live speech-processing task.

Charlotte Viktorsson, Niilo V Valtakari, Terje Falck-Ytter, Ignace T C Hooge, Maja Rudling, Roy S Hessels

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Charlotte Viktorsson *Development and Neurodiversity Lab, Department of Psychology, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden. charlotte.viktorsson@psyk.uu.se.
Niilo V Valtakari *Experimental Psychology, Helmholtz Institute, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Terje Falck-YtterDevelopment and Neurodiversity Lab, Department of Psychology, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
Ignace T C HoogeExperimental Psychology, Helmholtz Institute, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Maja RudlingDevelopment and Neurodiversity Lab, Department of Psychology, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
Roy S HesselsExperimental Psychology, Helmholtz Institute, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Looking at the mouth region is thought to be a useful strategy for speech-perception tasks. The tendency to look at the eyes versus the mouth of another person during speech processing has thus far mainly been studied using screen-based paradigms. In this study, we estimated the eye-mouth-index (EMI) of 38 adult participants in a live setting. Participants were seated across the table from an experimenter, who read sentences out loud for the participant to remember in both a familiar (English) and unfamiliar (Finnish) language. No statistically significant difference in the EMI between the familiar and the unfamiliar languages was observed. Total relative looking time at the mouth also did not predict the number of correctly identified sentences. Instead, we found that the EMI was higher during an instruction phase than during the speech-processing task. Moreover, we observed high intra-individual correlations in the EMI across the languages and different phases of the experiment. We conclude that there are stable individual differences in looking at the eyes versus the mouth of another person. Furthermore, this behavior appears to be flexible and dependent on the requirements of the situation (speech processing or not).

Indexed as

SpeechSpeech PerceptionAdultEyeFaceHumansLanguage

Identifiers

PMID37553414
PMCPMC10409748

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.