Integration of Partial Information Within and Across Modalities: Contributions to Spoken and Written Sentence Recognition.

PURPOSE This study evaluated the extent to which partial spoken or written information facilitates sentence recognition under degraded unimodal and multimodal conditions. METHOD Twenty young adults with typical hearing completed sentence recognition tasks in unimodal and multimodal conditions across 3 proportions of preservation. In the unimodal condition, performance was examined when only interrupted text or interrupted speech stimuli were available. In the multimodal condition, performance was examined when both interrupted text and interrupted speech stimuli were concurrently presented. Sentence recognition scores were obtained from simultaneous and delayed response conditions. RESULTS Significantly better performance was obtained for unimodal speech-only compared with text-only conditions across all proportions preserved. The multimodal condition revealed better performance when responses were delayed. During simultaneous responses, participants received equal benefit from speech information when the text was moderately and significantly degraded. The benefit from text in degraded auditory environments occurred only when speech was highly degraded. CONCLUSIONS The speech signal, compared with text, is robust against degradation likely due to its continuous, versus discrete, features. Allowing time for offline linguistic processing is beneficial for the recognition of partial sensory information in unimodal and multimodal conditions. Despite the perceptual differences between the 2 modalities, the results highlight the utility of multimodal speech + text signals.

[1]  Daniel Fogerty,et al.  Importance of envelope modulations during consonants and vowels in segmentally interrupted sentences. , 2014, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[2]  K. Patterson,et al.  Speak and spell: Dissociations and word-class effects. , 1987 .

[3]  James R. Booth,et al.  Functional Anatomy of Intra- and Cross-Modal Lexical Tasks , 2002, NeuroImage.

[4]  Dennis H. Klatt,et al.  Speech perception: a model of acoustic–phonetic analysis and lexical access , 1979 .

[5]  C. Watson,et al.  Auditory and visual speech perception: confirmation of a modality-independent source of individual differences in speech recognition. , 1996, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[6]  Donald Shankweiler,et al.  Phonological processes in literacy : a tribute to Isabelle Y. Liberman , 1991 .

[7]  C. Spence,et al.  Auditory perception: Interactions with vision , 2010 .

[8]  Christopher T. Lovelace,et al.  An irrelevant light enhances auditory detection in humans: a psychophysical analysis of multisensory integration in stimulus detection. , 2003, Brain research. Cognitive brain research.

[9]  James L. McClelland,et al.  An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception: I. An account of basic findings. , 1981 .

[10]  Bernard Mazoyer,et al.  Impact of modality and linguistic complexity during reading and listening tasks , 2007, NeuroImage.

[11]  IEEE Recommended Practice for Speech Quality Measurements , 1969, IEEE Transactions on Audio and Electroacoustics.

[12]  J. B. Wyman,et al.  What is reading ability , 1921 .

[13]  Elkan G. Akyürek,et al.  Temporal integration of consecutive tones into synthetic vowels demonstrates perceptual assembly in audition. , 2014, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[14]  W. H. Sumby,et al.  Visual contribution to speech intelligibility in noise , 1954 .

[15]  Joan Gay Snodgrass,et al.  Visual-word recognition thresholds for screen-fragmented names of the Snodgrass and Vanderwart pictures , 1992 .

[16]  M. Coltheart,et al.  Serial processing in reading aloud: Evidence for dual-route models of reading. , 1994 .

[17]  Thomas G. Devine Listening and Reading. , 1976 .

[18]  P F Seitz,et al.  The use of visible speech cues for improving auditory detection of spoken sentences. , 2000, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[19]  L. Humes,et al.  Reconstructing Wholes From Parts: Effects of Modality, Age, and Hearing Loss on Word Recognition , 2013, Ear and hearing.

[20]  G. Studebaker A "rationalized" arcsine transform. , 1985, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[21]  Christopher I. Petkov,et al.  Evolutionary conservation and neuronal mechanisms of auditory perceptual restoration , 2011, Hearing Research.

[22]  Tammo Houtgast,et al.  Measuring cognitive factors in speech comprehension: the value of using the Text Reception Threshold test as a visual equivalent of the SRT test. , 2009, Scandinavian journal of psychology.

[23]  Ana Torralbo,et al.  Perceptual-Load-Induced Selection as a Result of Local Competitive Interactions in Visual Cortex , 2008, Psychological science.

[24]  M. Mesulam,et al.  From sensation to cognition. , 1998, Brain : a journal of neurology.

[25]  Isabelle Y. Liberman,et al.  Basic research in speech and lateralization of language: Some implications for reading disability , 1971 .

[26]  K. Grant,et al.  Measures of auditory-visual integration for speech understanding: a theoretical perspective. , 2002, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[27]  D. Reisberg,et al.  Easy to hear but hard to understand: A lip-reading advantage with intact auditory stimuli. , 1987 .

[28]  Philipos C. Loizou,et al.  Speech Enhancement: Theory and Practice , 2007 .

[29]  G F Smoorenburg,et al.  Speech reception in quiet and in noisy conditions by individuals with noise-induced hearing loss in relation to their tone audiogram. , 1989, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[30]  Erica B. Michael,et al.  fMRI investigation of sentence comprehension by eye and by ear: Modality fingerprints on cognitive processes , 2001, Human brain mapping.

[31]  James L. McClelland,et al.  Visual factors in word perception , 1973 .

[32]  K. Grant,et al.  Auditory-visual speech recognition by hearing-impaired subjects: consonant recognition, sentence recognition, and auditory-visual integration. , 1998, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[33]  Dominic W. Massaro,et al.  Visual Information Processing in Reading , 1993 .

[34]  Tammo Houtgast,et al.  The development of the text reception threshold test: a visual analogue of the speech reception threshold test. , 2007, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[35]  Deniz Başkent,et al.  Individual differences in top-down restoration of interrupted speech: links to linguistic and cognitive abilities. , 2014, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[36]  Sam Duker,et al.  Listening and Reading , 1965, The Elementary School Journal.

[37]  Paul Duchnowski,et al.  A speechreading aid based on phonetic ASR , 1998, ICSLP.

[38]  T. Houtgast,et al.  Audiovisual Perception of Speech in Noise and Masked Written Text , 2007, Ear and hearing.

[39]  Martin Cooke,et al.  Making Sense of Everyday Speech: a Glimpsing Account , 2005, Speech Separation by Humans and Machines.

[40]  H. Komatsu The neural mechanisms of perceptual filling-in , 2006, Nature Reviews Neuroscience.

[41]  R. M. Warren,et al.  Perceptual synthesis of deleted phonemes , 1979 .

[42]  J A Bashford,et al.  Use of speech-modulated noise adds strong “bottom-up” cues for phonemic restoration , 1996, Perception & psychophysics.

[43]  Mary E. Curtis,et al.  Development of Components of Reading Skill. , 1980 .

[44]  J Verschuure,et al.  Intelligibility of interrupted meaningful and nonsense speech with and without intervening noise , 1983, Perception & psychophysics.

[45]  Angela D. Friederici,et al.  Phonemic restoration in a sentence context: Evidence from early and late ERP effects , 2006, Brain Research.

[46]  J. G. Snodgrass,et al.  On the generality of the perceptual closure effect. , 1998, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[47]  W. Olsen,et al.  Average Speech Levels and Spectra in Various Speaking/Listening Conditions: A Summary of the Pearson, Bennett, & Fidell (1977) Report. , 1998, American journal of audiology.

[48]  M. Daneman,et al.  How young and old adults listen to and remember speech in noise. , 1995, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[49]  Joel R. Meyer,et al.  Modality-specific and -independent developmental differences in the neural substrate for lexical processing , 2003, Journal of Neurolinguistics.

[50]  J A Bashford,et al.  Increasing the intelligibility of speech through multiple phonemic restorations. , 1990, Perception & psychophysics.

[51]  L. Pessoa,et al.  Filling-in: From perceptual completion to cortical reorganization. , 2003 .

[52]  R M Warren,et al.  Perceptual restoration of obliterated sounds. , 1984, Psychological bulletin.

[53]  W. Marslen-Wilson Functional parallelism in spoken word-recognition , 1987, Cognition.

[54]  Christian E Stilp Information-bearing acoustic change outperforms duration in predicting intelligibility of full-spectrum and noise-vocoded sentences. , 2014, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[55]  John J. Foxe,et al.  Do you see what I am saying? Exploring visual enhancement of speech comprehension in noisy environments. , 2006, Cerebral cortex.

[56]  C. A. Weaver,et al.  Psychology of Reading , 2012 .

[57]  Daniel Fogerty Acoustic predictors of intelligibility for segmentally interrupted speech: temporal envelope, voicing, and duration. , 2013, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[58]  S. Rosen Temporal information in speech: acoustic, auditory and linguistic aspects. , 1992, Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences.

[59]  G. Kanizsa,et al.  Organization in Vision: Essays on Gestalt Perception , 1979 .

[60]  Paul Duchnowski,et al.  Development of speechreading supplements based on automatic speech recognition , 2000, IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng..

[61]  F. Colavita Human sensory dominance , 1974 .

[62]  C. Perfetti,et al.  Reading in English and Chinese: Evidence for a "universal" phonological principle. , 1992 .

[63]  Montserrat Comesaña,et al.  On the role of the upper part of words in lexical access: Evidence with masked priming , 2012, Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[64]  S. Hochstein,et al.  The reverse hierarchy theory of visual perceptual learning , 2004, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[65]  D. Massaro,et al.  The role of lateral masking and orthographic structure in letter and word recognition. , 1979, Acta psychologica.

[66]  D. Mauer,et al.  " Phonological Awareness , 2012 .

[67]  V. Bruce,et al.  Visual Cognition: Computational, Experimental, and Neuropsychological Perspectives , 1989 .

[68]  K. Goodman Reading: A psycholinguistic guessing game , 1967 .

[69]  Joel R. Meyer,et al.  Modality independence of word comprehension , 2002, Human brain mapping.

[70]  J. M. Ackroff,et al.  Auditory Induction: Perceptual Synthesis of Absent Sounds , 1972, Science.

[71]  G. A. Miller,et al.  The Intelligibility of Interrupted Speech , 1948 .

[72]  A. Zekveld,et al.  New measures of masked text recognition in relation to speech-in-noise perception and their associations with age and cognitive abilities. , 2012, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[73]  Ruth Campbell,et al.  The processing of audio-visual speech: empirical and neural bases , 2008, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[74]  R. Day,et al.  Illusory Contours in Line Patterns with Apparent Depth Due to Either Perspective or Overlay , 1983, Perception.

[75]  J C Ziegler,et al.  Simulating individual word identification thresholds and errors in the fragmentation task , 1998, Memory & cognition.

[76]  Larry E Humes,et al.  Effects of age and hearing loss on the recognition of interrupted words in isolation and in sentences. , 2012, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[77]  Louis C. W. Pols,et al.  Vowel segments in consonantal contexts: a spectral study of coarticulation. Part I , 1979 .

[78]  Christopher D. Wickens,et al.  Multiple resources and performance prediction , 2002 .

[79]  S. Samuels,et al.  Reading and Listening to Expository Text , 1985 .

[80]  B. Shinn-Cunningham,et al.  Selective Attention in Normal and Impaired Hearing , 2008, Trends in amplification.

[81]  Daniel Fogerty,et al.  The role of vowel and consonant fundamental frequency, envelope, and temporal fine structure cues to the intelligibility of words and sentences. , 2012, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[82]  S. Hochstein,et al.  Reverse hierarchies and sensory learning , 2009, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[83]  Martin Cooke,et al.  Glimpsing speech , 2003, J. Phonetics.

[84]  M. Just,et al.  Brain activation for reading and listening comprehension: An fMRI study of modality effects and individual differences in language comprehension. , 2009, Psychology & neuroscience.

[85]  Richard M. Warren Auditory Illusions and Their Relation to Mechanisms Normally Enhancing Accuracy of Perception , 1983 .