↓ Skip to main content

Hearing impairment and audiovisual speech integration ability: a case study report

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, July 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
43 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
Hearing impairment and audiovisual speech integration ability: a case study report
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, July 2014
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00678
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nicholas Altieri, Daniel Hudock

Abstract

Research in audiovisual speech perception has demonstrated that sensory factors such as auditory and visual acuity are associated with a listener's ability to extract and combine auditory and visual speech cues. This case study report examined audiovisual integration using a newly developed measure of capacity in a sample of hearing-impaired listeners. Capacity assessments are unique because they examine the contribution of reaction-time (RT) as well as accuracy to determine the extent to which a listener efficiently combines auditory and visual speech cues relative to independent race model predictions. Multisensory speech integration ability was examined in two experiments: an open-set sentence recognition and a closed set speeded-word recognition study that measured capacity. Most germane to our approach, capacity illustrated speed-accuracy tradeoffs that may be predicted by audiometric configuration. Results revealed that some listeners benefit from increased accuracy, but fail to benefit in terms of speed on audiovisual relative to unisensory trials. Conversely, other listeners may not benefit in the accuracy domain but instead show an audiovisual processing time benefit.

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 43 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 43 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 26%
Student > Master 6 14%
Researcher 5 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 9%
Student > Bachelor 4 9%
Other 6 14%
Unknown 7 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 10 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 12%
Neuroscience 5 12%
Linguistics 3 7%
Engineering 3 7%
Other 9 21%
Unknown 8 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 October 2014.
All research outputs
#17,723,043
of 22,758,248 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#20,341
of 29,671 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#154,895
of 227,590 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#327
of 397 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,758,248 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,671 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 25th percentile – i.e., 25% 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 227,590 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 397 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.