Turning a blind eye to the lexicon: ERPs show no cross-talk between lip-read and lexical context during speech sound processing

Baart, Martijn; Samuel, Arthur G.

doi:10.1016/j.jml.2015.06.008

Cited by 25 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 74 publications

(116 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A versus AV data were analyzed for 93 individuals who had participated in the studies listed in Table . Peak amplitudes and latencies were determined for 75 of those (as mentioned above, the data from Baart & Samuel, , was excluded from peak analyses), but the mean N1 and P2 amplitudes in 50‐ms windows were calculated for all 93 ID ERPs. The N1 and P2 peak amplitude/latency differences mirrored the pattern of the GA analyses (see Table and Figure a,b) as lip‐read speech had suppressed the auditory N1 and P2, t s(74) > 3.27, p s one‐tailed < .001, with no statistical difference between amplitude suppression at the N1 and P2, t (74) = 1.50, p = .138.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, van Wassenhove and colleagues (2005) found that lip‐read information suppressed the amplitude of the auditory N1 and P2 and sped up both peaks. In contrast, others observed no lip‐read‐induced suppression of the N1 (e.g., Baart & Samuel, ; Frtusova, Winneke, & Phillips, ) or the P2 (see, e.g., Figure 2 in Treille, Vilain, & Sato, ), or no latency effect at the N1 (e.g., Kaganovich & Schumaker, ) or P2 (e.g., Stekelenburg & Vroomen, ).…”

mentioning

confidence: 97%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Quantifying lip‐read‐induced suppression and facilitation of the auditory N1 and P2 reveals peak enhancements and delays

Baart

2016

Psychophysiology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

characterization of lip-read-induced effects on the N1 and P2, auditory data was compared to AV and to AV-V. On average, the N1 and P2 were consistently suppressed and sped up by lip-read information, with no indication that AV integration effects were significantly modulated by whether or not V was subtracted from AV. To assess the possibility that variability in observed N1/P2 amplitudes and latencies may explain why N1/P2 suppression and facilitation are not always found, additional correlations between peak values and size of the AV integration effects were computed. These analyses showed that N1/P2 peak values correlated with the size of AV integration effects. However, it also became apparent that a portion of the AV integration effects was characterized by lip-read-induced peak enhancements and delays rather than suppressions and facilitations, which, for the individual data, seemed related to particularly small/early A-only peaks and large/late AV(-V) peaks.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 97%

Quantifying lip‐read‐induced suppression and facilitation of the auditory N1 and P2 reveals peak enhancements and delays

Baart

2016

Psychophysiology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, the influence of visual speech cues on lexical processing remains debated (e.g., Barutchu et al, 2008;Dekle et al, 1992;Sams et al, 1998;Windmann, 2004). Importantly, in an ERP study, Baart and Samuel (2015) did not observe any interaction between the effect of visual speech and lexicality. In that experiment, participants received 3-syllabic words and pseudowords in auditory-only, visual-only, and audiovisual modalities.…”

Section: How Does the Speech Modality Modulate Contact With The Lexicon?mentioning

confidence: 96%

The Role of Audiovisual Speech in the Early Stages of Lexical Processing as Revealed by the ERP Word Repetition Effect

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Numerous studies suggest that audiovisual speech influences lexical processing. However, it is not clear which stages of lexical processing are modulated by audiovisual speech. In this study, we examined the time course of the access to word representations in long‐term memory when they were presented in auditory‐only and audiovisual modalities. We exploited the effect of the prior access to a word on the subsequent access to that word known as the word repetition effect. Using event‐related potentials, we identified an early time window at about 200 milliseconds and a late time window starting at about 400 milliseconds related to the word repetition effect. Our results showed that the word repetition effect over the early time window was modulated by the speech modality while this influence of speech modality was not found over the late time window. Visual cues thus play a role in the early stages of lexical processing.

show abstract

“…However, the two factors did not affect each other’s degree of influence, and occurred at the same time points. Although Baart and Samuel (2015) did not test incongruent AV stimuli, their results suggest that lexical access and the integration of auditory and visual signals might, in certain circumstances, occur in parallel.…”

mentioning

confidence: 91%

“…There are some hints in prior research supporting this hypothesis. For example, Baart and Samuel (2015) presented subjects with spoken words and nonwords that differed at the onset of the third syllable (like “banana” and “banaba”). Additionally, the third syllable was either presented auditory-only, visual-only (i.e., mouthed), or auditory-visual.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

What you see isn’t always what you get: Auditory word signals trump consciously perceived words in lexical access

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Human speech perception often includes both an auditory and visual component. A conflict in these signals can result in the McGurk illusion, in which the listener perceives a fusion of the two streams, implying that information from both has been integrated. We report two experiments investigating whether auditory-visual integration of speech occurs before or after lexical access, and whether the visual signal influences lexical access at all. Subjects were presented with McGurk or Congruent primes and performed a lexical decision task on related or unrelated targets. Although subjects perceived the McGurk illusion, McGurk and Congruent primes with matching real-word auditory signals equivalently primed targets that were semantically related to the auditory signal, but not targets related to the McGurk percept. We conclude that the time course of auditory-visual integration is dependent on the lexicality of the auditory and visual input signals, and that listeners can lexically access one word and yet consciously perceive another.

show abstract

Turning a blind eye to the lexicon: ERPs show no cross-talk between lip-read and lexical context during speech sound processing

Cited by 25 publications

References 74 publications

Quantifying lip‐read‐induced suppression and facilitation of the auditory N1 and P2 reveals peak enhancements and delays

Quantifying lip‐read‐induced suppression and facilitation of the auditory N1 and P2 reveals peak enhancements and delays

The Role of Audiovisual Speech in the Early Stages of Lexical Processing as Revealed by the ERP Word Repetition Effect

What you see isn’t always what you get: Auditory word signals trump consciously perceived words in lexical access

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About