Does Face Familiarity Influence Speechreadability?

Lander, Karen; Davies, Rebecca

doi:10.1037/e512682013-188

Cited by 6 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…An improvement of 2 dB SNR after 4-5 lists at 50% speech reception is expected in audio-only MSTs [15]. We found a ~3 dB SNR improvement at 80% speech reception; this additional dB probably arose from the participants learning to speechread the material and becoming familiarized with the speaker [16]. Nevertheless, this training effect was not reported in the audiovisual Dutch MST [8] after a familiarization phase with the complete set of words and a training list of 10 audiovisual sentences.…”

Section: Training Effectssupporting

confidence: 53%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Development and evaluation of video recordings for the OLSA matrix sentence test

Llorach

Kirschner

Grimm

et al. 2021

International Journal of Audiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: The aim was to create and validate an audiovisual version of the German matrix sentence test (MST), which uses the existing audio-only speech material. Design: Video recordings were recorded and dubbed with the audio of the existing German MST. The current study evaluates the MST in conditions including audio and visual modalities, speech in quiet and noise, and open and closed-set response formats. Sample: One female talker recorded repetitions of the German MST sentences. Twenty-eight young normal-hearing participants completed the evaluation study. Results: The audiovisual benefit in quiet was 7.0 dB in sound pressure level (SPL). In noise, the audiovisual benefit was 4.9 dB in signal-to-noise ratio (SNR). Speechreading scores ranged from 0% to 84% speech reception in visual-only sentences (mean ¼ 50%). Audiovisual speech reception thresholds (SRTs) had a larger standard deviation than audio-only SRTs. Audiovisual SRTs improved successively with increasing number of lists performed. The final video recordings are openly available. Conclusions: The video material achieved similar results as the literature in terms of gross speech intelligibility, despite the inherent asynchronies of dubbing. Due to ceiling effects, adaptive procedures targeting 80% intelligibility should be used. At least one or two training lists should be performed.

show abstract

Section: Training Effectssupporting

confidence: 53%

“…After 2-4 trials, there is usually an absolute improvement of 2 dB, and the training effects in the following trials are quite small. In audiovisual MSTs, it is expected that participants further improve their SRTs by becoming familiar with the speaker and the visual material [16].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Development and evaluation of video recordings for the OLSA matrix sentence test

Llorach

Kirschner

Grimm

et al. 2021

International Journal of Audiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It is also consistent with the suggestion that the face identity code in this dorsal backup system is more robust than the representation in the ventral stream. Lander and Davies (2008) conclude that familiarity with a person's idiosyncratic speaking gestures can be coupled with the speech-specific articulation movements to facilitate speech-reading.…”

Section: Evidence From Facial Speech-readingmentioning

confidence: 89%

“…Familiarity with a speaker also seems to play a role in speech-reading ability. Lander and Davies (2008) found that as participants' experience with a speaker increases via exposure to video clips of the speakers reciting letters and telling stories, so does speech reading accuracy. The mediating role of familiarity in the use of motion information from the face is consistent with the proposals we made previously (O'Toole et al, 2002) for a secondary face identity system in pSTS.…”

Section: Evidence From Facial Speech-readingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Memory for Moving Faces: The Interplay of Two Recognition Systems

O’Toole¹,

Roark²

2010

Dynamic Faces

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The human face is a captivating stimulus, even when it is stationary. In motion, however, the face comes to life and offers us a myriad of information about the intent and personality of its owner. Through facial movements such as expressions, we can gauge a person's current state of mind. By perceiving the movements of the mouth as a friend speaks, a conversation becomes more intelligible in a noisy environment. Through the rigid movement of the head and the direction of eye gaze, we can follow another person's focus of attention in a crowded room. The amount and diversity of social information that can be conveyed by a face assures its place as a central focal object in any scene. Beyond the rich communication signals that we perceive in facial expressions, head orientation, eye gaze, and facial speech motions, it is also pertinent to ask whether the movements of a face help us to remember a person. The answer to this question can potentially advance our understanding of how the complex tasks we perform with faces, including those having to do with social interaction and memory, co-exist in a neural processing network. It can also shed light on the computational processes we use to extract recognition cues from the steady stream of facial movements that carry social meanings.Several years ago, we proposed a psychological and neural framework for understanding the contribution of motion to face recognition (O'Toole, Roark, and Abdi, 2002;Roark, Barrett, Spence, Abdi, and O'Toole, 2003). At the time,

show abstract

“…On the one hand, it has been proposed that what is learned is information about an individual's speech production, e.g., the perceiver learns information that specifies how a specific talker's vocal tract anatomy differs from that of other talkers, see Joos, [2]). Consistent with this idea is the finding that the talker familiarity effect occurs with visual speech [3]; [4] and that having seen a talker silently speaking can subsequently enhance the intelligibility of that talker's voice in noise [5].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 82%

Investigating the Role of Familiar Face and Voice Cues in Speech Processing in Noise

Kim¹,

Karisma²,

Aubanel³

et al. 2018

Interspeech 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The speech of a familiar talker is better recognized in noise than an unfamiliar one, suggesting that listeners access talkerspecific models to assist with degraded input. This study investigated whether a talker model could be accessed by presenting the face of a talker. In the experiment, participants were trained in recognizing three talkers' faces and voices to ceiling-level. Participants were then given a speech in noise recognition task consisting of four talker conditions: familiar face then familiar voice; unfamiliar face then familiar voice, familiar face then unfamiliar voice; and unfamiliar face then unfamiliar voice. A talker familiarity effect was found, i.e., speech perception was more accurate in the familiar face and familiar voice condition than all other ones. A familiar voice did not produce a talker familiarity effect when paired with an unfamiliar face. The familiar face and unfamiliar voice condition had the poorest performance, indicating that pairing a familiar face and unfamiliar voice had a disruptive effect. The results suggest that listeners develop a talker model that includes details of both the voice and the face; and that accessing this model can in some circumstances be wholly determined by face cues.

show abstract

Does Face Familiarity Influence Speechreadability?

Cited by 6 publications

References 0 publications

Development and evaluation of video recordings for the OLSA matrix sentence test

Development and evaluation of video recordings for the OLSA matrix sentence test

Memory for Moving Faces: The Interplay of Two Recognition Systems

Investigating the Role of Familiar Face and Voice Cues in Speech Processing in Noise

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About