Similarity ratings and confusability of lipread consonants compared with similarity ratings of auditory and orthographic stimuli.

Similarity ratings of pairs of lipread consonants were obtained using a 5-point scale. Matrices were constructed showing mean similarity ratings and confusions among stimuli. Both the similarity and the confusion data provide normative data useful for researchers in many areas. Lipread data collected here are compared with similarity ratings of orthographically and auditorily presented consonants collected by Manning (1977). These comparisons provide information about how stimulus similarity both within and between presentation formats may affect information processing of the three types of stimuli. These data are of special interest to researchers studying the visual processing of speech and the effect of format of presentation on recall.

[1]  A G Samuel,et al.  Recency and suffix effects in serial recall of musical stimuli. , 1986, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[2]  B E Walden,et al.  Predicting audiovisual consonant recognition performance of hearing-impaired adults. , 1974, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[3]  H. McGurk,et al.  Hearing lips and seeing voices , 1976, Nature.

[4]  S. Manning.  Effects of Difficulty Variables and Type of Suffix on Serial Recall , 1984 .

[5]  Robert G. Crowder,et al.  Memory for serial position: Effects of spacing, vocalization, and stimulus suffixes. , 1988 .

[6]  R. Conrad,et al.  Acoustic confusions in immediate memory. , 1964 .

[7]  R. G. Crowder,et al.  Modality and suffix effects in the absence of auditory stimulation , 1984 .

[8]  J. S. Nairne,et al.  A framework for interpreting recency effects in immediate serial recall , 1988, Memory & cognition.

[9]  R. G. Crowder,et al.  On the locus of the stimulus suffix effect , 1982, Memory & cognition.

[10]  Alan D. Baddeley,et al.  Acoustic memory and the perception of speech , 1974 .

[11]  C. Umilta,et al.  Multiple mechanisms for recency with vowels and consonants , 1989, Memory & cognition.

[12]  B. Walden,et al.  Effects of training on the visual recognition of consonants. , 1977, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[13]  D. Massaro,et al.  Perception of Synthesized Audible and Visible Speech , 1990 .

[14]  Robert G. Crowder,et al.  The sound of vowels and consonants in immediate memory , 1971 .

[15]  K. Foreit.  Short-lived auditory memory for pitch , 1976 .

[16]  A M Glenberg.  A retrieval account of the long-term modality effect. , 1984, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[17]  R. Campbell,et al.  Hearing by Eye , 1980, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[18]  S. Manning.  Attentional control of visual suffix effects , 1987 .

[19]  W J Corin,et al.  The stimulus suffix effect as a memory coding phenomenon , 1978, Memory & cognition.

[20]  David A. Routh,et al.  The Basis and Implications of the Restoration of a Recency Effect in Immediate Serial Recall , 1978 .

[21]  David Salter,et al.  Maintaining Recency despite a Stimulus Suffix , 1975 .

[22]  R. G. Crowder,et al.  Precategorical acoustic storage (PAS) , 1969 .

[23]  J M Gardiner,et al.  On recency and echoic memory. , 1983, Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences.

[24]  R. G. Crowder,et al.  Accuracy of temporal coding: Auditory-visual comparisons , 1989, Memory & cognition.