Language familiarity modulates relative attention to the eyes and mouth of a talker

Cognition

Volumn 147, Issue , 2016, Pages 100-105

  Barenholtz, Elan ^a   Mavica, Lauren ^a   Lewkowicz, David J ^b  

^a FLORIDA ATLANTIC UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b NORTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Attention; Language; Multisensory; Perception; Speech

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; EYE; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; INFORMATION PROCESSING; LANGUAGE; MALE; MOUTH; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SELECTIVE ATTENTION; SPEECH; TASK PERFORMANCE; ASSOCIATION; ATTENTION; EYE MOVEMENT; MULTILINGUALISM; PHYSIOLOGY; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; RECOGNITION; SPEECH PERCEPTION;

ATTENTION; CUES; EYE; EYE MOVEMENTS; HUMANS; LANGUAGE; MOUTH; MULTILINGUALISM; RECOGNITION (PSYCHOLOGY); SPEECH; SPEECH PERCEPTION;

EID: 84949033272     PISSN: 00100277     EISSN: 18737838     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2015.11.013     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Birmingham E., Bischof W.F., Kingstone A. Social attention and real-world scenes: The roles of action, competition and social content. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 2008, 61(7):986-998.
2. Buchan J.N., Paré M., Munhall K.G. Spatial statistics of gaze fixations during dynamic face processing. Social Neuroscience 2007, 2(1):1-13.
3. Cutler A., Weber A., Smits R., Cooper N. Patterns of English phoneme confusions by native and non-native listeners. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 2004, 116(6):3668-3678. 10.1121/1.1810292.
4. Driver J., Baylis G.C. Cross-modal negative priming and interference in selective attention. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society 1993, 31(1):45-48.
5. Emery N.J. The eyes have it: The neuroethology, function and evolution of social gaze. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews 2000, 24(6):581-604.
6. Gat I.B., Keith R.W. An effect of linguistic experience: Auditory word discrimination by native and non-native speakers of English. International Journal of Audiology 1978, 17(4):339-345.
7. Lansing C.R., McConkie G.W. Attention to facial regions in segmental and prosodic visual speech perception tasks. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 1999, 42(3):526-539.
8. Lansing C., McConkie G. Word identification and eye fixation locations in visual and visual-plus-auditory presentations of spoken sentences. Perception & Psychophysics 2003, 65(4):536-552. 10.3758/BF03194581.
9. Lecumberri M.G., Cooke M. Effect of masker type on native and non-native consonant perception in noise. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 2006, 119(4):2445-2454.
10. Lewkowicz D.J., Hansen-Tift A.M. Infants deploy selective attention to the mouth of a talking face when learning speech. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2012, (5):1431-1436.
11. Love S.A., Pollick F.E., Petrini K. Effects of experience, training and expertise on multisensory perception: Investigating the link between brain and behavior. Cognitive Behavioural Systems 2012, 304-320. Springer.
12. Mayo L.H., Florentine M., Buus S. Age of second-language acquisition and perception of speech in noise. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 1997, 40(3):686-693.
13. McGurk H., MacDonald J. Hearing lips and seeing voices. Nature 1976, 264(5588):746-748.
14. Meredith M.A., Stein B.E. Visual, auditory, and somatosensory convergence on cells in superior colliculus results in multisensory integration. Journal of Neurophysiology 1986, 56(3):640-662.
15. Middelweerd M., Plomp R. The effect of speechreading on the speech-reception threshold of sentences in noise. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 1987, 82(6):2145-2147.
16. Navarra J., Alsius A., Velasco I., Soto-Faraco S., Spence C. Perception of audiovisual speech synchrony for native and non-native language. Brain Research 2010, 1323:84-93.
17. Paré M., Richler R.C., ten Hove M., Munhall K. Gaze behavior in audiovisual speech perception: The influence of ocular fixations on the McGurk effect. Perception & Psychophysics 2003, 65(4):553-567.
18. Partan S., Marler P. Communication goes multimodal. Science 1999, 283(5406):1272-1273.
19. Pons F., Bosch L., Lewkowicz D.J. Bilingualism modulates infants' selective attention to the mouth of a talking face. Psychological Science 2015, 26(4):490-498.
20. Rosenblum L.D. Speech perception as a multimodal phenomenon. Current Directions in Psychological Science 2008, 17(6):405-409.
21. Rosenblum L.D., Johnson J.A., Saldana H.M. Point-light facial displays enhance comprehension of speech in noise. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 1996, 39(6):1159-1170.
22. Rowe C. Receiver psychology and the evolution of multicomponent signals. Animal Behaviour 1999, 58(5):921-931.
23. Sumby W.H., Pollack I. Visual contribution to speech intelligibility in noise. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 1954, 26:212-215.
24. Summerfield Q. Use of visual information for phonetic perception. Phonetica 1979, 36(4-5):314-331.
25. Van Wijngaarden S.J., Steeneken H., Houtgast T. Quantifying the intelligibility of speech in noise for non-native listeners. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 2002, 111(4):1906-1916.
26. Vatikiotis-Bateson E., Eigsti I.-M., Yano S., Munhall K. Eye movement of perceivers during audiovisualspeech perception. Perception & Psychophysics 1998, 60(6):926-940.