The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Intermodal timing relations and audio-visual speech recognition by normal-hearing adults
Abstract
Audio-visual identification of sentences was measured as a function of audio delay in untrained observers with normal hearing; the soundtrack was replaced by rectangular pulses originally synchronized to the closing of the talker’s vocal folds and then subjected to delay. When the soundtrack was delayed by 160 ms, identification scores were no better than when no acoustical information at all was provided. Delays of up to 80 ms had little effect on group-mean performance, but a separate analysis of a subgroup of better lipreaders showed a significant trend of reduced scores with increased delay in the range from 0–80 ms. A second experiment tested the interpretation that, although the main disruptive effect of the delay occurred on a syllabic time scale, better lipreaders might be attempting to use intermodal timing cues at a phonemic level. Normal-hearing observers determined whether a 120-Hz complex tone started before or after the opening of a pair of liplike Lissajou figures. Group-mean difference limens (70.7% correct DLs) were −79 ms (sound leading) and +138 ms (sound lagging), with no significant correlation between DLs and sentence lipreading scores. It was concluded that most observers, whether good lipreaders or not, possess insufficient sensitivity to intermodal timing cues in audio-visual speech for them to be used analogously to voice onset time in auditory speech perception. The results of both experiments imply that delays of up to about 40 ms introduced by signal-processing algorithms in aids to lipreading should not materially affect audio-visual speech understanding.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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?
In the citing paper
“The onset lag time for dubbing for all tokens was found to be no greater than 9.4 msec, well below the 80-msec range required for observers to detect an audiovisual asynchrony”
From The McGurk effect in infants (1997) · cites this paper as McGrath & Summerfield, 1985
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Temporal window of integration in auditory-visual speech perception
van Wassenhove, V., Grant, K. W., & Poeppel, D. (2006) · Neuropsychologia · doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2006.01.001 · Cited by 649
The use of visible speech cues for improving auditory detection of spoken sentences
Grant, K. W., & Seitz, P.-F. (2000) · The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · doi:10.1121/1.1288668 · Cited by 522
Oviatt, S. L. (2007) · CRC Press eBooks · doi:10.1201/9781410615862.ch21 · Cited by 492
Perception of intersensory synchrony: A tutorial review
Vroomen, J., & Keetels, M. (2010) · Attention Perception & Psychophysics · doi:10.3758/app.72.4.871 · Cited by 512
“The effect was biggest when auditory vowels were synchronized with the original mouth movements (McGrath & Summerfield, 1985), but the effect survives, even if audition lagged vision by 180 msec (see also Soto-Faraco & Alsius, 2007, 2009; these studies show that participants can still perceive a…”
Auditory capture of vision: examining temporal ventriloquism
Morein‐Zamir, S., Soto‐Faraco, S., & Kingstone, A. F. (2003) · Cognitive Brain Research · doi:10.1016/s0926-6410(03)00089-2 · Cited by 468
Metadata
- Authors
- McGrath, M., & Summerfield, Q.
- Affiliations
- University of Nottingham (GB)
- MRC Institute of Hearing Research, University of Nottingham, Nottingham NG7 2RD, England
- Venue
- The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America
- Publisher
- Acoustical Society of America (ASA)
- Published
- 1985-02-01
- Volume
- 77
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 678-685
- ISSN
- 0001-4966 (ISSN-L)
- 1520-8524
- OpenAlex
- W1996803179
- Cited by
- 201
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 12
- FWCI
- 1.12
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Multisensory perception and integration
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Signal Processing › Speech and Audio Processing
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Phonetics and Phonology Research
- Keywords
- audio-visual speech recognition, lip reading, audio delay, voice onset time, just noticeable difference, sentence identification, normal hearing adults
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Auditory Perception, Humans, Lipreading, Middle Aged, Time Factors, Visual Perception
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