The use of visible speech cues for improving auditory detection of spoken sentences.

By K. W. Grant, P. Seitz. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 2000

579 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Cognitive Neuroscience, Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/6a90e9d1f245baad76692e8277672c062bd47a6b

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Cognitive Neuroscience

In Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

Citations in the corpus

Heterochrony and Cross-Species Intersensory Matching by Infant Vervet Monkeys (2009, background): “movements and vocalizations’ amplitude modulations [29,30,31] created a particularly salient audio-visual combination and that”
Audio-visual speech scene analysis: characterization of the dynamics of unbinding and rebinding the McGurk effect. (2015, background): “The bidirectional arrows in Figure 10 998 between the auditory and visual boxes on one hand and coherence C(t) on the 999 other hand indicate that C(t) may also provide some feedback enabling better 1000 extraction of monosensory cues, as displayed by data on the audio-visual speech 1001 detection a”
Binding and unbinding the auditory and visual streams in the McGurk effect. (2012, background): “…1999; Jiang et al., 2002; Chandrasekaran et al., 2009), and correlation in time between rms energy (particularly in the mid-to-high frequency energy-envelope) and lip area has been considered a key factor in the audiovisual speech detection advantage (Grant and Seitz, 2000; Kim and Davis, 2004).”
Speech Perception as a Multimodal Phenomenon (2008, unknown): “Importantly, this research shows that the amount of improvement depends on the degree to which the visible extent of mouth opening is correlated with the changing auditory amplitude of the speech (Grant & Seitz, 2000).”
Mechanisms Underlying Selective Neuronal Tracking of Attended Speech at a ‘Cocktail Party’ (2013, background): “Moreover, articulation movements of the mouth and jaw are correlated with the acoustic envelope of speech (Chandrasekaran et al., 2009; Grant and Seitz, 2000).”
The Effect of Imagination on Stimulation: The Functional Specificity of Efference Copies in Speech Processing (2013, background): “…can benefit perception under noisy or challenging conditions in audition (e.g., Elhilali, Xiang, Shamma, & Simon, 2009; van Wassenhove et al., 2005; Grant & Seitz, 2000) and vision (e.g., Peelen, FeiFei, & Kastner, 2009; Summerfield et al., 2006; Kastner, Pinsk, De Weerd, Desimone, & Ungerleider,…”
The temporal binding window for audiovisual speech: Children are like little adults (2016, background): “…the information conferred by a talker’s face and lip movements can markedly increase the intelligibility of the auditory signal (Macleod & Summerfield, 1987; Schwartz, Berthommier, & Savariaux, 2004; Sumby & Pollack, 1954), and improve speech detection thresholds in noise (Grant & Seitz, 2000).”
Do you see what I am saying? Exploring visual enhancement of speech comprehension in noisy environments. (2006, background): “A number of other studies have also investigated the contribution of vision to speech perception in noise with more complex stimuli such as sentences (e.g., MacLeod and Summerfield 1987; Grant and Seitz 2000).”
The Effects of Visual Beats on Prosodic Prominence: Acoustic Analyses, Auditory Perception and Visual Perception. (2007, background): “Keating et al. (2003), for instance, showed that acoustic accents are associated with a clearer visual articulation, while it has also been found that speech sounds louder when participants can look at the speaker, suggesting that audio cues are visually enhanced ( Grant & Seitz, 2000; Schwartz et ”
Audio-visual speech perception is special. (2005, background): “loudness of the auditory stimuli (Rosenblum & Fowler, 1991; Grant & Seitz, 2000 ).”
The Natural Statistics of Audiovisual Speech (2009, methodology): “For example, reversing or shifting the auditory components of sentences in time leads to a loss of multisensory advantages [40] and speech detection in noise is enhanced for matched compared to unmatched audiovisual sentences [33].”