PURPOSE: This study compared the use of 2 different types of contextual cues (sentence based and situation based) in 2 different modalities (visual only and auditory only). METHOD: Twenty young adults were tested with the Illustrated Sentence Test (Tye-Murray, Hale, Spehar, Myerson, & Sommers, 2014) and the Speech Perception in Noise Test (Bilger, Nuetzel, Rabinowitz, & Rzeczkowski, 1984; Kalikow, Stevens, & Elliott, 1977) in the 2 modalities. The Illustrated Sentences Test presents sentences with no context and sentences accompanied by picture-based situational context cues. The Speech Perception in Noise Test presents sentences with low sentence-based context and sentences with high sentence-based context. RESULTS: Participants benefited from both types of context and received more benefit when testing occurred in the visual-only modality than when it occurred in the auditory-only modality. Participants' use of sentence-based context did not correlate with use of situation-based context. Cue usage did not correlate between the 2 modalities. CONCLUSIONS: The ability to use contextual cues appears to be dependent on the type of cue and the presentation modality of the target word(s). In a theoretical sense, the results suggest that models of word recognition and sentence processing should incorporate the influence of multiple sources of information and recognize that the 2 types of context have different influences on speech perception. In a clinical sense, the results suggest that aural rehabilitation programs might provide training to optimize use of both kinds of contextual cues.
PURPOSE: This study compared the use of 2 different types of contextual cues (sentence based and situation based) in 2 different modalities (visual only and auditory only). METHOD: Twenty young adults were tested with the Illustrated Sentence Test (Tye-Murray, Hale, Spehar, Myerson, & Sommers, 2014) and the Speech Perception in Noise Test (Bilger, Nuetzel, Rabinowitz, & Rzeczkowski, 1984; Kalikow, Stevens, & Elliott, 1977) in the 2 modalities. The Illustrated Sentences Test presents sentences with no context and sentences accompanied by picture-based situational context cues. The Speech Perception in Noise Test presents sentences with low sentence-based context and sentences with high sentence-based context. RESULTS:Participants benefited from both types of context and received more benefit when testing occurred in the visual-only modality than when it occurred in the auditory-only modality. Participants' use of sentence-based context did not correlate with use of situation-based context. Cue usage did not correlate between the 2 modalities. CONCLUSIONS: The ability to use contextual cues appears to be dependent on the type of cue and the presentation modality of the target word(s). In a theoretical sense, the results suggest that models of word recognition and sentence processing should incorporate the influence of multiple sources of information and recognize that the 2 types of context have different influences on speech perception. In a clinical sense, the results suggest that aural rehabilitation programs might provide training to optimize use of both kinds of contextual cues.