Response Errors in Females' and Males' Sentence Lipreading Necessitate Structurally Different Models for Predicting Lipreading Accuracy

Overview

Journal Lang Learn

Date 2019 Sep 6

PMID 31485084

Citations 5

Authors

Lynne E Bernstein

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Lipreaders recognize words with phonetically impoverished stimuli, an ability that is generally poor in normal-hearing adults. Individual sentence lipreading trials from 341 young adults were modeled to predict words and phonemes correct in terms of measures of phoneme response dissimilarity (PRD), number of inserted incorrect response phonemes, lipreader gender, and a measure of speech perception in noise. Interactions with lipreaders' gender necessitated structurally different models of males' and females' lipreading. Overall, female lipreaders are more accurate, their ability to recognize words with impoverished or degraded input is consistent across visual and auditory modalities, and they amplify their correct responding through top-down insertion of text. Males' responses suggest that individuals with poorer auditory speech perception in noise amplify their responses by shifting towards including text in their response that is more perceptually discrepant from the stimulus. Attention to gender differences merits attention in future studies that use visual speech stimuli.

Citing Articles

Lipreading a naturalistic narrative in a female population: Neural characteristics shared with listening and reading.

Saalasti S, Alho J, Lahnakoski J, Bacha-Trams M, Glerean E, Jaaskelainen I Brain Behav. 2022; 13(2):e2869.

PMID: 36579557 PMC: 9927859. DOI: 10.1002/brb3.2869.

Lipreading: A Review of Its Continuing Importance for Speech Recognition With an Acquired Hearing Loss and Possibilities for Effective Training.

Bernstein L, Jordan N, Auer E, Eberhardt S Am J Audiol. 2022; 31(2):453-469.

PMID: 35316072 PMC: 9524756. DOI: 10.1044/2021_AJA-21-00112.

Visualization of Speech Perception Analysis Phoneme Alignment: A Pilot Study.

Ratnanather J, Wang L, Bae S, ONeill E, Sagi E, Tward D Front Neurol. 2022; 12:724800.

PMID: 35087462 PMC: 8787339. DOI: 10.3389/fneur.2021.724800.

During Lipreading Training With Sentence Stimuli, Feedback Controls Learning and Generalization to Audiovisual Speech in Noise.

Bernstein L, Auer E, Eberhardt S Am J Audiol. 2021; 31(1):57-77.

PMID: 34965362 PMC: 9128727. DOI: 10.1044/2021_AJA-21-00034.

Errors on a Speech-in-Babble Sentence Recognition Test Reveal Individual Differences in Acoustic Phonetic Perception and Babble Misallocations.

Bernstein L, Eberhardt S, Auer Jr E Ear Hear. 2021; 42(3):673-690.

PMID: 33928926 PMC: 9648067. DOI: 10.1097/AUD.0000000000001020.

References

McGurk H, Macdonald J . Hearing lips and seeing voices. Nature. 1976; 264(5588):746-8. DOI: 10.1038/264746a0. View

Bernstein L, Demorest M, TUCKER P . Speech perception without hearing. Percept Psychophys. 2000; 62(2):233-52. DOI: 10.3758/bf03205546. View

Bernstein L, Auer Jr E, TUCKER P . Enhanced speechreading in deaf adults: can short-term training/practice close the gap for hearing adults?. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2001; 44(1):5-18. DOI: 10.1044/1092-4388(2001/001). View

Schlosshauer M, Ohlsson M . A novel approach to local reliability of sequence alignments. Bioinformatics. 2002; 18(6):847-54. DOI: 10.1093/bioinformatics/18.6.847. View

Auer Jr E . The influence of the lexicon on speech read word recognition: contrasting segmental and lexical distinctiveness. Psychon Bull Rev. 2002; 9(2):341-7. DOI: 10.3758/bf03196291. View

Mattys S, Bernstein L, Auer Jr E . Stimulus-based lexical distinctiveness as a general word-recognition mechanism. Percept Psychophys. 2002; 64(4):667-79. DOI: 10.3758/bf03194734. View

Demorest M, Bernstein L . Sources of variability in speechreading sentences: a generalizability analysis. J Speech Hear Res. 1992; 35(4):876-91. DOI: 10.1044/jshr.3504.876. View

Killion M, Niquette P, Gudmundsen G, Revit L, Banerjee S . Development of a quick speech-in-noise test for measuring signal-to-noise ratio loss in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am. 2004; 116(4 Pt 1):2395-405. DOI: 10.1121/1.1784440. View

Mohammed T, Campbell R, MacSweeney M, Milne E, Hansen P, Coleman M . Speechreading skill and visual movement sensitivity are related in deaf speechreaders. Perception. 2005; 34(2):205-16. DOI: 10.1068/p5211. View

10.

Sommers M, Tye-Murray N, Spehar B . Auditory-visual speech perception and auditory-visual enhancement in normal-hearing younger and older adults. Ear Hear. 2005; 26(3):263-75. DOI: 10.1097/00003446-200506000-00003. View

11.

Ross L, Saint-Amour D, Leavitt V, Javitt D, Foxe J . Do you see what I am saying? Exploring visual enhancement of speech comprehension in noisy environments. Cereb Cortex. 2006; 17(5):1147-53. DOI: 10.1093/cercor/bhl024. View

12.

Ruytjens L, Albers F, van Dijk P, Wit H, Willemsen A . Neural responses to silent lipreading in normal hearing male and female subjects. Eur J Neurosci. 2006; 24(6):1835-44. DOI: 10.1111/j.1460-9568.2006.05072.x. View

13.

Ruytjens L, Albers F, van Dijk P, Wit H, Willemsen A . Activation in primary auditory cortex during silent lipreading is determined by sex. Audiol Neurootol. 2007; 12(6):371-7. DOI: 10.1159/000106480. View

14.

Auer Jr E, Bernstein L . Enhanced visual speech perception in individuals with early-onset hearing impairment. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2007; 50(5):1157-65. DOI: 10.1044/1092-4388(2007/080). View

15.

Tye-Murray N, Sommers M, Spehar B . The effects of age and gender on lipreading abilities. J Am Acad Audiol. 2008; 18(10):883-92. DOI: 10.3766/jaaa.18.10.7. View

16.

Stevenson R, James T . Audiovisual integration in human superior temporal sulcus: Inverse effectiveness and the neural processing of speech and object recognition. Neuroimage. 2008; 44(3):1210-23. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2008.09.034. View

17.

Jaeger T . Categorical Data Analysis: Away from ANOVAs (transformation or not) and towards Logit Mixed Models. J Mem Lang. 2009; 59(4):434-446. PMC: 2613284. DOI: 10.1016/j.jml.2007.11.007. View

18.

Nath A, Beauchamp M . Dynamic changes in superior temporal sulcus connectivity during perception of noisy audiovisual speech. J Neurosci. 2011; 31(5):1704-14. PMC: 3050590. DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4853-10.2011. View

19.

Jiang J, Bernstein L . Psychophysics of the McGurk and other audiovisual speech integration effects. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2011; 37(4):1193-209. PMC: 3149717. DOI: 10.1037/a0023100. View

20.

Liu S, Rovine M, Molenaar P . Selecting a linear mixed model for longitudinal data: repeated measures analysis of variance, covariance pattern model, and growth curve approaches. Psychol Methods. 2012; 17(1):15-30. DOI: 10.1037/a0026971. View