ArticlePloS one2026
Impact of visual mouth image presentation on speech perception in noise in normal hearing subjects and cochlear implant users.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
This study investigated the impact of visual speech cues on speech perception in noise and subjective listening effort in cochlear implant (CI) users compared with normal-hearing (NH) individuals. Furthermore, the study compared visual information presented either by a computer-generated avatar or by video recordings of a real speaker. Thirteen NH participants and twelve bilateral CI users completed the Oldenburg Sentence Test (OLSA) in six conditions: auditory‑only, visual‑only, and audiovisual presentations using either video recordings (female speaker) or a computer‑animated avatar (male speaker). Speech reception thresholds (SRTs) in noise and subjective listening effort (LE) were measured. Visual‑only lipreading performance and self‑assessed lipreading skills were also recorded. Video‑based audiovisual presentation significantly improved speech perception compared with audio‑only presentation (NH: 1.6 dB; CI: 3.5 dB). CI users demonstrated substantially higher lipreading scores than NH participants (51% vs. 28%), and lipreading performance strongly correlated with self‑reported ability. Despite SRT improvements, audiovisual presentation yielded only marginal reductions in listening effort for CI users and none for NH participants. In contrast, the computer‑animated avatar provided no measurable audiovisual benefit for speech perception or listening effort in either group. Real‑speaker video recordings considerably enhance audiovisual speech perception in both NH individuals and CI users, particularly benefiting CI listeners. However, reductions in listening effort were minimal, underscoring the dissociation between speech perception and perceived listening effort. Incorporating audiovisual measures may improve ecological validity in clinical assessment of CI outcomes.
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.