ArticleFrontiers in human neuroscience2024
Mirrors and toothaches: commonplace manipulations of non-auditory feedback availability change perceived speech intelligibility.
Article in Frontiers in human neuroscience, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Active inference and speech motor control.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This paper investigates the impact of two non-technical speech feedback perturbations outside the auditory modality: topical application of commercially-available benzocaine to reduce somatosensory feedback from speakers' lips and tongue tip, and the presence of a mirror to provide fully-detailed visual self-feedback. In experiment 1, speakers were recorded under normal quiet conditions (i.e., baseline), then again with benzocaine application plus auditory degradation, and finally with the addition of mirror feedback. Speech produced under normal and both feedback-altered conditions was assessed via naïve listeners' intelligibility discrimination judgments. Listeners judged speech produced under bisensory degradation to be less intelligible than speech from the un-degraded baseline, and with a greater degree of difference than previously observed with auditory-only degradation. The introduction of mirror feedback, however, did not result in relative improvements in intelligibility. Experiment 2, therefore, assessed the effect of a mirror on speech intelligibility in isolation with no other sensory feedback manipulations. Speech was recorded at baseline and then again in front of a mirror, and relative intelligibility was discriminated by naïve listeners. Speech produced with mirror feedback was judged as less intelligible than baseline tokens, indicating a negative impact of visual self-feedback in the absence of other sensory manipulations. The results of both experiments demonstrate that relatively accessible manipulations of non-auditory sensory feedback can produce speech-relevant effects, and that those effects are perceptible to naïve listeners.
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.