Early auditory cortical processing predicts auditory speech in noise identification and lipreading

2021 ◽  
Vol 161 ◽  
pp. 108012
Author(s):  
James W. Dias ◽  
Carolyn M. McClaskey ◽  
Kelly C. Harris
2014 ◽  
Vol 136 (2) ◽  
pp. EL142-EL147 ◽  
Author(s):  
Björn Lidestam ◽  
Shahram Moradi ◽  
Rasmus Pettersson ◽  
Theodor Ricklefs

2012 ◽  
Vol 25 (0) ◽  
pp. 123
Author(s):  
Celina C. Nahanni ◽  
Justin M. Deonarine ◽  
Martin Paré ◽  
Kevin G. Munhall

The sight of a talker’s face dramatically influences the perception of auditory speech. This effect is most commonly observed when subjects are presented audiovisual (AV) stimuli in the presence of acoustic noise. However, the magnitude of the gain in perception that vision adds varies considerably in published work. Here we report data from an ongoing study of individual differences in AV speech perception when English words are presented in an acoustically noisy background. A large set of monosyllablic nouns was presented at 7 signal-to-noise ratios (pink noise) in both AV and auditory-only (AO) presentation modes. The stimuli were divided into 14 blocks of 25 words and each block was equated for spoken frequency using the SUBTLEXus database (Brysbaert and New, 2009). The presentation of the stimulus blocks was counterbalanced across subjects for noise level and presentation. In agreement with Sumby and Pollack (1954), the accuracy of both AO and AV increase monotonically with signal strength with the greatest visual gain being when the auditory signal was weakest. These average results mask considerable variability due to subject (individual differences in auditory and visual perception), stimulus (lexical type, token articulation) and presentation (signal and noise attributes) factors. We will discuss how these sources of variance impede comparisons between studies.


2015 ◽  
Vol 138 (5) ◽  
pp. 2627-2634 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daphne Ari-Even Roth ◽  
Avi Karni ◽  
Minka Hildesheimer ◽  
Liat Kishon-Rabin

2017 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jens Kreitewolf ◽  
Samuel R. Mathias ◽  
Katharina von Kriegstein

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anne-Marie Muller ◽  
Tyler C. Dalal ◽  
Ryan A Stevenson

Multisensory integration, the process by which sensory information from different sensory modalities are bound together, is hypothesized to contribute to perceptual symptomatology in schizophrenia, including hallucinations and aberrant speech perception. Differences in multisensory integration and temporal processing, an important component of multisensory integration, have been consistently found among individuals with schizophrenia. Evidence is emerging that these differences extend across the schizophrenia spectrum, including individuals in the general population with higher levels of schizotypal traits. In the current study, we measured (1) multisensory integration using an audiovisual speech-in-noise task, and the McGurk task. Using the speech-in-noise task, we assessed (2) susceptibility to distracting auditory speech to test the hypothesis that increased perception of distracting speech that is subsequently bound with mismatching visual speech contributes to hallucination-like experiences. As a measure of (3) temporal processing, we used the ternary synchrony judgment task. We measured schizotypal traits using the Schizotypal Personality Questionnaire (SPQ), hypothesizing that higher levels of schizotypal traits, specifically Unusual Perceptual Experiences and Odd Speech subscales, would be associated with (1) decreased multisensory integration, (2) increased susceptibility to distracting auditory speech, and (3) less precise temporal processing. Surprisingly, neither subscales were associated with any of the measures. These results suggest that these perceptual differences may not be present across the schizophrenia spectrum.


2011 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 8-14
Author(s):  
Robert Moore ◽  
Susan Gordon-Hickey

The purpose of this article is to propose 4 dimensions for consideration in hearing aid fittings and 4 tests to evaluate those dimensions. The 4 dimensions and tests are (a) working memory, evaluated by the Revised Speech Perception in Noise test (Bilger, Nuetzel, & Rabinowitz, 1984); (b) performance in noise, evaluated by the Quick Speech in Noise test (QSIN; Killion, Niquette, Gudmundsen, Revit, & Banerjee, 2004); (c) acceptance of noise, evaluated by the Acceptable Noise Level test (ANL; Nabelek, Tucker, & Letowski, 1991); and (d) performance versus perception, evaluated by the Perceptual–Performance test (PPT; Saunders & Cienkowski, 2002). The authors discuss the 4 dimensions and tests in the context of improving the quality of hearing aid fittings.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document