Benefits of facial and textual information in understanding of vocoded speech

Auditory-Visual Speech Processing 2007, AVSP 2007

Volumn , Issue , 2007, Pages

  Thomas, Sharon M ^a   Pilling, Michael ^a  

^a MRC INSTITUTE OF HEARING RESEARCH   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AUDITION; CHARACTER RECOGNITION; SPEECH RECOGNITION;

'CURRENT; AUDIO-VISUAL SPEECH; CONDITION; EXPOSED TO; NORMAL HEARING; PERFORMANCE; SPEECH IDENTIFICATION; TEXT CONDITIONS; TEXTUAL INFORMATION; TRAINING CONDITIONS;

SPEECH PROCESSING;

EID: 84858450573     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (23)

1. Thomas, S.M., and Pilling, M. (2007). Benefits of audiovisual exposure using a simulation of a cochlear-implant system. Under revision. Ear & hearing.
2. Clark, G.M. (2002). Learning to hear and the cochlear implant. In Fahle, M., and Poggio, T., (eds.) Perceptual learning: MIT Press: 147-160.
3. Shannon, R.V., Zeng, F.G., and Wygonski, J. (1998). Speech recognition with altered spectral distribution of envelope cues, Journal_of_the_Acoustical_Society_of America,_104, 2467-2476.
4. Rosen, S., Faulkner, A., & Wilkinson, L. 1999. “Adaptation by normal listeners to upward spectral shifts of speech: Implications for cochlear implants.” J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 106 (6), 3629-36.
5. Davis, M.H., Johnsrude, I.S., Hervais-Adelman, A., Tayler, K., & McGettingan, C. (2005). Lexical information drives perceptual learning of distorted speech: Evidence From the Comprehension of Noise-Vocoded Sentences._Journal_of_Experimental Psychology:General._134, 222-241.
6. Stacy, P., & Summerfield, A.Q. (2005) Auditory-perceptual training using simulation of a cochlear-implant system: A controlled study. Proceedings_of ISA_Workshop_on_Plasticity_in_Speech_Perception (PSP2005). London, UK.
7. Sumby, W.H., Pollack, I., 1954. Visual contribution to speech intelligibility in noise. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 26, 212-15.
8. Erber, N. P. (1969). Interaction of audition and vision in the recognition of oral speech stimuli. Journal_of Speech_&_Hearing_Research,_12, 423-425.
9. Erber, N.P. (1975). Auditory-visual perception of speech. Journal_of_Speech_&_Hearing_Disorders_40: 481-492.
10. MacLeod, A., & Summerfield, Q. (1987). Quantifying the contribution of vision to speech perception in noise. British_Journal_of_Audiology,_12,131-141.
11. MacLeod, A., & Summerfield, Q. (1990). A procedure for measuring auditory and audio-visual speech-reception thresholds for sentences in noise: rationale, evaluation, and recommendations for use. British Journal_of_Audiology,_24,_29-43.
12. Middleweerd, M.J., & Plomp, R. (1987). The effect of speechreading on the speech-reception threshold of sentences in noise. Journal_of_the_Acoustical_Society of_America,_82, 2145-2147.
13. Walden, B.E., Grant, K.W., & Cord, M.T. (2001). Effects of amplification and speechreading on consonant recognition by persons with impaired hearing. Ear Hear._22: 333-341.
14. Reisberg, D., McLean, J, & Goldfield, A (1987). Easy to hear but hard to understand: A lipreading advantage with intact auditory stimuli. In B. Dodd & R. Campbell (Eds.), Hearing_by_eye:_The_psychology of_lip-reading (pp. 97-113). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
15. Arnold, P. & Hill, F. (2001). Bisensory augmentation: a speechreading advantage when speech is clearly audible and intact. British_Journal_of_Psychology,_92, 339-355.
16. McGurk, H., & MacDonald, J. (1976). Hearing lips and seeing voices. Nature,_264, 746-748.
17. Green, K.P. 1997. The use of auditory and visual information during phonetic processing: implications for theories of speech perception. In B. Dodd & R. Campbell (Eds.), Hearing by eye: The psychology of lip-reading (pp. 97-113). Lon.: Erlbaum.
18. van Wassenhove, Grant, K.W., & Poeppel, D. 2005. Visual speech speeds up the neural processing of auditory speech. PNAS, 102, 1181-6
19. Calvert. G. & Campbell. M. 2000. Evidence from functional magnetic resonance imaging of crossmodal binding in the human heteromodal cortex. Curr. Biol. 10:649-57
20. Summerfield, Q. (1987). Some preliminaries to a comprehensive account of audio-visual speech perception. In B. Dodd and R. Campbell (eds.) Hearing by_eye:_The_psychology_of_lip_reading Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
21. Kaiser, A., Kirk, K., Lachs, L., P. & Pisoni (2003). Talker and Lexical Effects on Audiovisual Word Recognition by Adults With Cochlear Implants. Journal_of_Speech,_Language,_and_Hearing_Research, 46, 390-404.
22. Bench, J., & Bamford, J. (Eds.). (1979). Speech-hearing Tests and the Spoken Language of Hearing-impaired Children. London: Academic Press.
23. Remez, R. E., Rubin, P. E., Pisoni, D. B., & Carrell, T. D. (1981). Speech perception without traditional speech cues. Science, 212 (4497), 947-949.