Literature DB >> 3973239

Intermodal timing relations and audio-visual speech recognition by normal-hearing adults.

M McGrath, Q Summerfield.   

Abstract

Audio-visual identification of sentences was measured as a function of audio delay in untrained observers with normal hearing; the soundtrack was replaced by rectangular pulses originally synchronized to the closing of the talker's vocal folds and then subjected to delay. When the soundtrack was delayed by 160 ms, identification scores were no better than when no acoustical information at all was provided. Delays of up to 80 ms had little effect on group-mean performance, but a separate analysis of a subgroup of better lipreaders showed a significant trend of reduced scores with increased delay in the range from 0-80 ms. A second experiment tested the interpretation that, although the main disruptive effect of the delay occurred on a syllabic time scale, better lipreaders might be attempting to use intermodal timing cues at a phonemic level. Normal-hearing observers determined whether a 120-Hz complex tone started before or after the opening of a pair of liplike Lissajou figures. Group-mean difference limens (70.7% correct DLs) were - 79 ms (sound leading) and + 138 ms (sound lagging), with no significant correlation between DLs and sentence lipreading scores. It was concluded that most observers, whether good lipreaders or not, possess insufficient sensitivity to intermodal timing cues in audio-visual speech for them to be used analogously to voice onset time in auditory speech perception. The results of both experiments imply that delays of up to about 40 ms introduced by signal-processing algorithms in aids to lipreading should not materially affect audio-visual speech understanding.

Mesh:

Year:  1985        PMID: 3973239     DOI: 10.1121/1.392336

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am        ISSN: 0001-4966            Impact factor:   1.840


  36 in total

1.  The cross-modal spread of attention reveals differential constraints for the temporal and spatial linking of visual and auditory stimulus events.

Authors:  Sarah E Donohue; Kenneth C Roberts; Tineke Grent-'t-Jong; Marty G Woldorff
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2011-06-01       Impact factor: 6.167

2.  Discrimination tests of visually influenced syllables.

Authors:  L D Rosenblum; H M Saldaña
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  1992-10

3.  Multistage audiovisual integration of speech: dissociating identification and detection.

Authors:  Kasper Eskelund; Jyrki Tuomainen; Tobias S Andersen
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2010-12-25       Impact factor: 1.972

4.  Children with a history of SLI show reduced sensitivity to audiovisual temporal asynchrony: an ERP study.

Authors:  Natalya Kaganovich; Jennifer Schumaker; Laurence B Leonard; Dana Gustafson; Danielle Macias
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2014-08       Impact factor: 2.297

5.  Perceptual fusion and stimulus coincidence in the cross-modal integration of speech.

Authors:  Lee M Miller; Mark D'Esposito
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2005-06-22       Impact factor: 6.167

6.  Integrating speech information across talkers, gender, and sensory modality: female faces and male voices in the McGurk effect.

Authors:  K P Green; P K Kuhl; A N Meltzoff; E B Stevens
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  1991-12

7.  Adaptation to audiovisual asynchrony modulates the speeded detection of sound.

Authors:  Jordi Navarra; Jessica Hartcher-O'Brien; Elise Piazza; Charles Spence
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2009-05-20       Impact factor: 11.205

8.  Tactile enhancement of auditory and visual speech perception in untrained perceivers.

Authors:  Bryan Gick; Kristín M Jóhannsdóttir; Diana Gibraiel; Jeff Mühlbauer
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2008-04       Impact factor: 1.840

9.  Temporal constraints on the McGurk effect.

Authors:  K G Munhall; P Gribble; L Sacco; M Ward
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  1996-04

10.  Neural processing of asynchronous audiovisual speech perception.

Authors:  Ryan A Stevenson; Nicholas A Altieri; Sunah Kim; David B Pisoni; Thomas W James
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2010-02-15       Impact factor: 6.556

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.