↓ Skip to main content

Gated audiovisual speech identification in silence vs. noise: effects on time and accuracy

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
44 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
45 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Gated audiovisual speech identification in silence vs. noise: effects on time and accuracy
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00359
Pubmed ID
Authors

Shahram Moradi, Björn Lidestam, Jerker Rönnberg

Abstract

This study investigated the degree to which audiovisual presentation (compared to auditory-only presentation) affected isolation point (IPs, the amount of time required for the correct identification of speech stimuli using a gating paradigm) in silence and noise conditions. The study expanded on the findings of Moradi et al. (under revision), using the same stimuli, but presented in an audiovisual instead of an auditory-only manner. The results showed that noise impeded the identification of consonants and words (i.e., delayed IPs and lowered accuracy), but not the identification of final words in sentences. In comparison with the previous study by Moradi et al., it can be concluded that the provision of visual cues expedited IPs and increased the accuracy of speech stimuli identification in both silence and noise. The implication of the results is discussed in terms of models for speech understanding.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 45 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
United States 1 2%
Unknown 43 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 33%
Researcher 7 16%
Other 3 7%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 7%
Student > Master 3 7%
Other 6 13%
Unknown 8 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 15 33%
Neuroscience 6 13%
Linguistics 5 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 4%
Physics and Astronomy 2 4%
Other 6 13%
Unknown 9 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 July 2013.
All research outputs
#15,222,468
of 22,712,476 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#18,171
of 29,506 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#180,882
of 280,743 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#705
of 969 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,712,476 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,506 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 280,743 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 969 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.