Auditory and Visual Lexical Neighborhoods in Audiovisual Speech Perception

Trends in Amplification

Volumn 11, Issue 4, 2007, Pages 233-241

  Tye Murray, Nancy ^a   Sommers, Mitchell ^b   Spehar, Brent ^a  

^a WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

auditory visual speech perception; integration; Lexical neighborhood

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; AUDITORY SYSTEM; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; HEARING; HEARING TEST; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; MALE; NORMAL HUMAN; PHONETICS; SPEECH; SPEECH DISCRIMINATION; SPEECH PERCEPTION; VISION; VISUAL SYSTEM; WORD RECOGNITION;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; AUDITORY PERCEPTION; COGNITION; CUES; DEAF-BLIND DISORDERS; FACIAL EXPRESSION; FEMALE; HEARING IMPAIRED PERSONS; HEARING LOSS, SENSORINEURAL; HEARING TESTS; HUMANS; MALE; PERCEPTUAL MASKING; PHONETICS; SEVERITY OF ILLNESS INDEX; SPEECH ACOUSTICS; SPEECH PERCEPTION; VISUAL PERCEPTION;

EID: 36248950233     PISSN: 10847138     EISSN: 19405588     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1084713807307409     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Grant KW Walden BE Seitz PF. Auditory-visual speech recognition by hearing-impaired subjects: consonant recognition, sentence recognition, and auditory-visual integration. J Acoust Soc Am. 1198;103: 2677–2690.
2. Sumby WH Pollack I. Visual contributions to speech intelligibility in noise. J Acoust Soc Am. 1954;26: 212–215.
3. Sommers MS Tye-Murray N Spehar B. Auditory-visual speech perception and auditory-visual enhancement in normal-hearing younger and older adults. Ear Hear. 2005;26: 263–275.
4. Tyler RD Preece J Tye-Murray N. The Iowa Laser Videodisk Tests. Iowa City, Iowa: University of Iowa Hospitals; 1986.
5. Summerfield Q. Visual perception of phonetic gestures. In: Mattingly IG ed. Modularity and the Motor Theory of Speech Perception. Hillsdale, NJ: Laurence Erlbaum; 1989: 117–137.
6. Massaro D. Perceiving Talking Faces: From Speech Perception to a Behavioral Principle. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 1998.
7. Ouni S Cohen M Ishak H Massaro D. Visual contribution to speech perception: measuring the intelligibility of animated talking heads. Eurasip J Audio Speech Music Process. In press.
8. Cienkowski KM Carney AE. Auditory–visual speech perception and aging. Ear Hear. 2002;23: 439–449.
9. Tye-Murray N Sommers M Spehar B. Audiovisual integration and lipreading abilities of older adults with normal and impaired hearing. Ear Hear. In press.
10. Braida L. Crossmodal integration in the identification of consonant segments. Psych Quart J Exp Psych. 1991;43: 647–677.
11. Grant KW. Measures of auditory-visual integration for speech understanding: a theoretical perspective. J Acoust Soc Am. 2002;112: 30–33.
12. Sommers MS Spehar B Tye-Murray N. The effects of signal-to-noise ratio on auditory-visual integration: integration and encoding are not independent. J Acoust Soc Am. 2005;117: 2574.
13. Blamey PJ Cowan RSC Alcantara JI Whitford LA Clark GM. Speech perception using combinations of auditory, visual, and tactile information. J Rehab Res Devel. 1989;26: 15–24.
14. Luce PA Pisoni DB. Recognizing spoken words: the neighborhood activation model. Ear Hear. 1998;19: 1–36.
15. Mattys SL Bernstein LE Auer ET. Stimulus-based lexical distinctiveness as a general word-recognition mechanism. Percept Psychophys. 2002;64: 667–679.
16. Lesner SA Sandridge SA Kricos PB. Training influences on visual consonant and sentence recognition. Ear Hear. 1987;8: 283–287.
17. Berger KW. Speechreading: Principles and methods. Kent, Ohio: Herald; 1972.
18. Tye-Murray N Geers A. Children's Audiovisual Enhancement Test. St. Louis, MO: Central Institute for the Deaf; 2001.
19. Kaiser AR Kirk KI Lachs L Pisoni DB. Talker and lexical effects on audiovisual word recognition by adults with cochlear implants. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2003;46: 390–404.
20. Spehar B Tye-Murray N Sommers M. Time-compressed visual speech and age: a first report. Ear Hear. 2004;25: 565–572.
21. American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. Guidelines for determining threshold level for speech. ASHA. 1988;30: 85–89.