2016
DOI: 10.1121/1.4945590
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Audiovisual speech perception development at varying levels of perceptual processing

Abstract: This study used the auditory evaluation framework [Erber (1982). Auditory Training (Alexander Graham Bell Association, Washington, DC)] to characterize the influence of visual speech on audiovisual (AV) speech perception in adults and children at multiple levels of perceptual processing. Six- to eight-year-old children and adults completed auditory and AV speech perception tasks at three levels of perceptual processing (detection, discrimination, and recognition). The tasks differed in the level of perceptual … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

4
32
1
1

Year Published

2016
2016
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 35 publications
(38 citation statements)
references
References 69 publications
4
32
1
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Visual speech consistently made it 1) harder to discriminate the non-intact from intact speech and 2) more likely to perceive the non-intact onsets as intact in both CHL and CNH for the easy to speechread onsets (/B/). These results agree with the finding that visual speech benefits both word discrimination and recognition (obtained in AX paradigm) in CNH [30]. For the hard-to-speechread onsets /G/, visual speech minimally (≤ 10%) affected both discrimination and identification in the CHL but only discrimination in the CNH.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 90%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Visual speech consistently made it 1) harder to discriminate the non-intact from intact speech and 2) more likely to perceive the non-intact onsets as intact in both CHL and CNH for the easy to speechread onsets (/B/). These results agree with the finding that visual speech benefits both word discrimination and recognition (obtained in AX paradigm) in CNH [30]. For the hard-to-speechread onsets /G/, visual speech minimally (≤ 10%) affected both discrimination and identification in the CHL but only discrimination in the CNH.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 90%
“…Current, but scant, evidence indicates that: 1 ) Visual speech (salient contrasts) improved both phoneme discrimination and identification [6], and 2) Visual speech 2a ) produced adult-like benefit at an earlier age for word discrimination than word recognition as measured in an AX paradigm, and 2b ) benefited word recognition as measured in an AX paradigm more than word discrimination in adults but not in young children [30]. If we supplement this limited information with the auditory only evidence, the findings are mixed [3135].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, they do not yet show adult patterns of visual attention. This may be because the audiovisual speech processing system is still immature in 12-month-olds and even develops during childhood (Knowland, Mercure, Karmiloff-Smith, Dick, & Thomas, 2014) and from childhood to adulthood (Lalonde & Holt, 2016).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We paired three tasks involving auditory or visual discrimination with corresponding steady-state responses. All behavioral tasks required discrimination as opposed to detection, in order to target high-level perceptual judgments [32]. …”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%