Literature DB >> 20473178

Aging, audiovisual integration, and the principle of inverse effectiveness.

Nancy Tye-Murray1, Mitchell Sommers, Brent Spehar, Joel Myerson, Sandra Hale.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this investigation was to compare the ability of young and older adults to integrate auditory and visual sentence materials under conditions of good and poor signal clarity. The principle of inverse effectiveness (PoIE), which characterizes many neuronal and behavioral phenomena related to multisensory integration, asserts that as unimodal performance declines, integration is enhanced. Thus, the PoIE predicts that both young and older adults will show enhanced integration of auditory and visual speech stimuli when these stimuli are degraded. More importantly, because older adults' unimodal speech recognition skills decline in both the auditory and visual domains, the PoIE predicts that older adults will show enhanced integration during audiovisual speech recognition relative to younger adults. This study provides a test of these predictions.
DESIGN: Fifty-three young and 53 older adults with normal hearing completed the closed-set Build-A-Sentence test and the CUNY Sentence test in a total of eight conditions; four unimodal and four audiovisual. In the unimodal conditions, stimuli were either auditory or visual and either easier or harder to perceive; the audiovisual conditions were formed from all the combinations of the unimodal signals. The hard visual signals were created by degrading video contrast, and the hard auditory signals were created by decreasing the signal to noise ratio. Scores from the unimodal and bimodal conditions were used to compute auditory enhancement and integration enhancement measures.
RESULTS: Contrary to the PoIE, neither the auditory enhancement nor integration enhancement measures increased when signal clarity in the auditory or visual channel of audiovisual speech stimuli was decreased, nor was either measure higher for older adults than for young adults. In audiovisual conditions with easy visual stimuli, the integration enhancement measure for older adults was equivalent to that for young adults. However, in conditions with hard visual stimuli, integration enhancement for older adults was significantly lower than that for young adults.
CONCLUSIONS: The present findings do not support extension of the PoIE to audiovisual speech recognition. Our results are not consistent with either the prediction that integration would be enhanced under conditions of poor signal clarity or the prediction that older adults would show enhanced integration, relative to young adults. Although there is a considerable controversy with regard to the best way to measure audiovisual integration, the fact that two of the most prominent measures, auditory enhancement and integration enhancement, both yielded results inconsistent with the PoIE, strongly suggests that the integration of audiovisual speech stimuli differs in some fundamental way from the integration of other bimodal stimuli. The results also suggest that aging does not impair integration enhancement when the visual speech signal has good clarity, but may affect it when the visual speech signal has poor clarity.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20473178      PMCID: PMC2924437          DOI: 10.1097/AUD.0b013e3181ddf7ff

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ear Hear        ISSN: 0196-0202            Impact factor:   3.570


  21 in total

1.  Tests of auditory-visual integration efficiency within the framework of the fuzzy logical model of perception.

Authors:  D W Massaro; M M Cohen
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2000-08       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  Analysis of group differences in processing speed: Brinley plots, Q-Q plots, and other conspiracies.

Authors:  Joel Myerson; David R Adams; Sandra Hale; Lisa Jenkins
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2003-03

3.  Hearing lips and seeing voices.

Authors:  H McGurk; J MacDonald
Journal:  Nature       Date:  1976 Dec 23-30       Impact factor: 49.962

4.  Speech recognition in the elderly.

Authors:  P Plath
Journal:  Acta Otolaryngol Suppl       Date:  1990

5.  Auditory-visual speech perception and aging.

Authors:  Kathleen M Cienkowski; Arlene Earley Carney
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2002-10       Impact factor: 3.570

6.  Speaking clearly for the hard of hearing. II: Acoustic characteristics of clear and conversational speech.

Authors:  M A Picheny; N I Durlach; L D Braida
Journal:  J Speech Hear Res       Date:  1986-12

7.  Converging evidence for domain-specific slowing from multiple nonlexical tasks and multiple analytic methods.

Authors:  S Hale; J Myerson; M Faust; N Fristoe
Journal:  J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci       Date:  1995-07       Impact factor: 4.077

8.  A "rationalized" arcsine transform.

Authors:  G A Studebaker
Journal:  J Speech Hear Res       Date:  1985-09

9.  Cross-modal enhancement of speech detection in young and older adults: does signal content matter?

Authors:  Nancy Tye-Murray; Brent Spehar; Joel Myerson; Mitchell S Sommers; Sandra Hale
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2011 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 3.570

10.  Longitudinal study of changes in speech perception between 70 and 81 years of age.

Authors:  K E Pedersen; U Rosenhall; M B Møller
Journal:  Audiology       Date:  1991
View more
  35 in total

1.  Listening Effort in Younger and Older Adults: A Comparison of Auditory-Only and Auditory-Visual Presentations.

Authors:  Mitchell S Sommers; Damian Phelps
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2016 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 3.570

2.  Links between temporal acuity and multisensory integration across life span.

Authors:  Ryan A Stevenson; Sarah H Baum; Juliane Krueger; Paul A Newhouse; Mark T Wallace
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2017-04-27       Impact factor: 3.332

3.  Audiovisual sentence recognition not predicted by susceptibility to the McGurk effect.

Authors:  Kristin J Van Engen; Zilong Xie; Bharath Chandrasekaran
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2017-02       Impact factor: 2.199

4.  Visual Acuity does not Moderate Effect Sizes of Higher-Level Cognitive Tasks.

Authors:  James R Houston; Ilana J Bennett; Philip A Allen; David J Madden
Journal:  Exp Aging Res       Date:  2016       Impact factor: 1.645

5.  Effects of age and left hemisphere lesions on audiovisual integration of speech.

Authors:  Kelly Michaelis; Laura C Erickson; Mackenzie E Fama; Laura M Skipper-Kallal; Shihui Xing; Elizabeth H Lacey; Zainab Anbari; Gina Norato; Josef P Rauschecker; Peter E Turkeltaub
Journal:  Brain Lang       Date:  2020-05-21       Impact factor: 2.381

6.  The effect of visual distraction on auditory-visual speech perception by younger and older listeners.

Authors:  Julie I Cohen; Sandra Gordon-Salant
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2017-05       Impact factor: 1.840

7.  Does hearing aid use affect audiovisual integration in mild hearing impairment?

Authors:  Anja Gieseler; Maike A S Tahden; Christiane M Thiel; Hans Colonius
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2018-02-16       Impact factor: 1.972

8.  Visual-Somatosensory Integration in Older Adults: Links to Sensory Functioning.

Authors:  Kristina Dumas; Roee Holtzer; Jeannette R Mahoney
Journal:  Multisens Res       Date:  2016       Impact factor: 2.286

9.  Lipreading and audiovisual speech recognition across the adult lifespan: Implications for audiovisual integration.

Authors:  Nancy Tye-Murray; Brent Spehar; Joel Myerson; Sandra Hale; Mitchell Sommers
Journal:  Psychol Aging       Date:  2016-06

10.  Deficits in audiovisual speech perception in normal aging emerge at the level of whole-word recognition.

Authors:  Ryan A Stevenson; Caitlin E Nelms; Sarah H Baum; Lilia Zurkovsky; Morgan D Barense; Paul A Newhouse; Mark T Wallace
Journal:  Neurobiol Aging       Date:  2014-08-07       Impact factor: 4.673

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.