Auditory-visual fusion in speech perception in children with cochlear implants
Open accessAbstract
Speech, for most of us, is a bimodal percept whenever we both hear the voice and see the lip movements of a speaker. Children who are born deaf never have this bimodal experience. We tested children who had been deaf from birth and who subsequently received cochlear implants for their ability to fuse the auditory information provided by their implants with visual information about lip movements for speech perception. For most of the children with implants (92%), perception was dominated by vision when visual and auditory speech information conflicted. For some, bimodal fusion was strong and consistent, demonstrating a remarkable plasticity in their ability to form auditory-visual associations despite the atypical stimulation provided by implants. The likelihood of consistent auditory-visual fusion declined with age at implant beyond 2.5 years, suggesting a sensitive period for bimodal integration in speech perception.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Normal early sensory experience appears crucial for development of cross-modal perception.
“Normal early sensory experience appears crucial for development of cross-modal perception (28, 29)”
From Fusion of visual cues is not mandatory in children (2010) · cites this paper as [28]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 22 · Cited by 220
- Authors
- Schorr, E. A., Fox, N. A., van Wassenhove, V., & Knudsen, E. I.
- Affiliations
- California Institute of Technology (US)
- Department of Human Development/Institute of Child Study, University of Maryland, 3304 Benjamin Building, College Park, MD 20742; Visual and Multisensory Perception Laboratory, Department of Psychology, University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1563; Shimojo Psychophysics Laboratory, Division of Biology, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91125; and Department of Neurobiology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305-5125
- Corresponding author
- Knudsen, Eric I.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
- Publisher
- National Academy of Sciences
- Published
- 2005-12-08
- Volume
- 102
- Issue
- 51
- Pages
- 18748-18750
- ISSN
- 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
- 1091-6490
- PMC
- PMC1317952
- OpenAlex
- W1993657412
- Cited by
- 220
- References
- 22
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 14 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 14
- FWCI
- 8.21
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- CaltechAUTHORS (California Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- American Hearing Research Foundation
- National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (F31DC006204, 1-F31DC006204-02)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Multisensory perception and integration
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Hearing Impairment and Communication
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Hearing Loss and Rehabilitation
- Keywords
- speech perception, cochlear implants, lip reading, bimodal perception, deaf children, visual dominance, neuroplasticity, age at implantation, sensitive period, congenital hearing loss
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Aging, Child, Child, Preschool, Cochlear Implants, Deafness, Female, Hearing, Humans, Infant, Male, Speech Perception, Time Factors, Vision, Ocular
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
