The word superiority effect in audiovisual speech perception

Speech Communication

Volumn 52, Issue 6, 2010, Pages 525-532

  Fort, Mathilde ^a   Spinelli, Elsa ^a,b   Savariaux, Christophe ^a   Kandel, Sonia ^a,b  

^a UNIV GRENOBLE ALPES   (France)

^b INSTITUT UNIVERSITAIRE DE FRANCE   (France)

Author keywords

Audiovisual speech; Lexical access; Speech perception in noise; Word recognition

Indexed keywords

ACOUSTIC SIGNALS; ACTIVATION PROCESS; AUDIO-VISUAL SPEECH; FACIAL GESTURES; PHONEME DETECTION; SPEECH PERCEPTION; VISUAL INFORMATION; WORD RECOGNITION;

ACOUSTIC WAVES; AUDIO ACOUSTICS; LINGUISTICS; SIGNAL DETECTION; VISUAL COMMUNICATION; VOCABULARY CONTROL;

SPEECH RECOGNITION;

EID: 77951139652     PISSN: 01676393     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.specom.2010.02.005     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Amano, J., Sekiyama, K., 1998. The McGurk effect is influenced by the stimulus set size. In: Proceedings of the Auditory-Visual Speech Processing Conference. Terrigal, Australia, December 4-7, pp. 43-48.
2. Barutchu A., Crewther S., Kiely P., and Murphy M. When /b/ill with /g/ill becomes /d/ill: evidence for a lexical effect in audiovisual speech perception. Eur. J. Cognitive Psychol. 20 1 (2008) 1-11
3. Benoît C., Mohamadi T., and Kandel S. Effects of phonetic context on audio-visual intelligibility of French. J. Speech Hear. Res. 37 5 (1994) 1195-1203
4. Brancazio L. Lexical influences in audiovisual speech perception. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 30 3 (2004) 445-463
5. Buchwald A.B., Winters S.J., and Pisoni D.B. Visual speech primes open-set recognition of spoken words. Lang. Cognitive Proc. 24 4 (2009) 580-610
6. Colin C., and Radeau M. Les illusions McGurk dans la parole: 25 ans de recherches. Ann. Psychol. 104 (2003) 497-542
7. Connine C.M., and Titone C. Phoneme monitoring. Lang. Cognitive Proc. 11 6 (1996) 635-645
8. Cutler A., Mehler J., Norris D., and Segui J. Phoneme identification and the lexicon. Cognitive Psychol. 19 (1987) 141-177
9. Erber N.P. Interaction of audition and vision in the recognition of oral speech stimuli. J. Speech Hear. Res. 12 2 (1969) 423-425
10. Frauenfelder U.H., Segui J., and Dijkstra T. Lexical effects in phonemic processing: facilitatory or inhibitory. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 16 1 (1990) 77-91
11. Ganong III W.F. Phonetic categorization in auditory word perception. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 6 1 (1980) 110-125
12. Gow D.W. Feature parsing: feature cue mapping in spoken word recognition. Percept. Psychophys. 65 4 (2003) 575-590
13. Green K.P. The use of auditory and visual information during phonetic processing: Implications for theories of speech perception. In: Campbell R., Dodd B., and Burnham D. (Eds). Hearing by Eyes II: Advances in the Psychology of Speechreading and Auditory-Visual Speech (1998), Psychology Press, Hove, England 3-26
14. Kim J., Davis C., and Krins P. Amodal processing of visual speech as revealed by priming. Cognition 93 1 (2004) B39-B47
15. LoCasto P.C., Connine C.M., and Patterson D. The role of additional processing time and lexical constraint in spoken word recognition. Lang. Speech 50 (2007) 54-75
16. Marslen-Wilson W.D. Activation, competition and frequency in lexical access. In: Altmann G.T.M. (Ed). Cognitive Models of Speech Processing (1990), The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA 148-172
17. McClelland J.L., and Elman J.L. The TRACE model of speech perception. Cognitive Psychol. 18 (1986) 1-86
18. McGurk H., and MacDonald J. Hearing lips and seeing voices. Nature 264 (1976) 746-748
19. Miller G.A., and Nicely P.E. An analysis of perceptual confusions among some English consonants. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 27 2 (1955) 338-352
20. New B., Pallier C., Ferrand L., and Matos R. Une base de données lexicales du français contemporain sur internet: LEXIQUE. Ann. Psychol. 101 (2001) 447-462. http://www.lexique.org http://www.lexique.org
21. Norris D., McQueen J.M., and Cutler A. Merging information in speech recognition: feedback is never necessary. Behav. Brain Sci. 23 3 (2000) 299-325
22. Robert-Ribes J., Lallouache T., Escudier P., and Schwartz J.L. Complementary and synergy in bimodal speech: auditory, visual and audiovisual identification of French oral vowels in noise. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 103 (1998) 3677-3689
23. Sams M., Manninen P., Surakka V., Helin P., and Kättö R. McGurk effect in Finnish syllabes, isolated words, and words in sentences: effects of word meaning and sentence context. Speech Commun. 26 (1998) 75-87
24. Samuel A.G. Phonemic restoration: insights from a new methodology. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 110 (1981) 474-494
25. Spinelli E., and Ferrand L. Psychologie du langage: l'écrit et le parlé, du signal à la signification (2005), Armand Colin, Paris
26. Sumby W.H., and Pollack I. Visual contribution to speech intelligibility in noise. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 26 (1954) 212-215
27. Summerfield Q. Some preliminaries to a comprehensive account to audio-visual speech perception. In: Campbell B.D.A.R. (Ed). Hearing by Eye: The Psychology of Lipreading (1987), Erlbaum, Londres 3-51
28. Tiippana K., Andersen T.S., and Sams M. Visual attention modulates audiovisual speech perception. Eur. J. Cognitive Psychol. 16 (2004) 457-472
29. Warren R.M. Perceptual restoration of missing speech sounds. Science 167 917 (1970) 392-393