Audio-visual speech experience with age influences perceived audio-visual asynchrony in speech

Abstract

Previous research indicates that perception of audio-visual (AV) synchrony changes in adulthood. Possible explanations for these age differences include a decline in hearing acuity, a decline in cognitive processing speed, and increased experience with AV binding. The current study aims to isolate the effect of AV experience by comparing synchrony judgments from 20 young adults (20 to 30 yrs) and 20 normal-hearing middle-aged adults (50 to 60 yrs), an age range for which a decline of cognitive processing speed is expected to be minimal. When presented with AV stop consonant syllables with asynchronies ranging from 440 ms audio-lead to 440 ms visual-lead, middle-aged adults showed significantly less tolerance for audio-lead than young adults. Middle-aged adults also showed a greater shift in their point of subjective simultaneity than young adults. Natural audio-lead asynchronies are arguably more predictable than natural visual-lead asynchronies, and this predictability may render audio-lead thresholds more prone to experience-related fine-tuning.

Age mitigates the correlation between cognitive processing speed and audio-visual asynchrony detection in speech

“…Taken together the studies by Hay-McCutcheon et al (2009) and Baskent and Bazo (2011) may indicate an influence of AV experience on AV asynchrony detection in speech, and by controlling for age differences in hearing acuity and cognitive processing speed the findings of Alm and Behne (2013) strengthen this assumption. Cognitive processing speed changes little until 60 years of age (e.g., Der and Deary, 2006), and the results of Alm and Behne's study (2013) revealed that normal-hearing middle-aged adults (mean 53 years) had a significantly more conservative ALT than normal-hearing young adults (mean 23 years), whereas the VLTs were similar between the age-groups.…”

“…ALT and VLT indicate the participants' synchrony threshold for audio-lead and visual-lead stimuli and the distance between ALT and VLT is the AV synchrony window. Studies on SJ generally reveal an AV synchrony window of a few hundred milliseconds (e.g., Alm and Behne, 2013;Conrey and Pisoni, 2006;Hay-McCutcheon et al, 2009) with ALT substantially more conservative than VLT (e.g., Alm and Behne, 2013;Conrey and Pisoni, 2006;Hay-McCutcheon et al, 2009). Previous research reveals considerable diversity within normal populations for both RT (e.g., Besle et al, 2004;Der and Deary, 2006;Hale et al, 1988) and AV asynchrony detection (e.g., Conrey and Pisoni, 2006;Powers et al, 2009).…”

“…More importantly for the current assessment, the effect was observable when the participants were retested one week later, which indicates that AV experience can generate lasting changes in AV asynchrony detection in adults. Directly related to speech, AV experience may account for the age-related reduction in tolerance for audio-lead asynchronies observed comparing normal-hearing young and middle-aged adults (i.e., prior to substantial cognitive decline) (Alm and Behne, 2013) and may counterbalance influences suggested to broaden the AV synchrony window in older adulthood, such as declining cognitive processing speed (Baskent and Bazo, 2011). In accordance with the principles of perceptual learning of Goldstone (1998), one may speculate that age-related AV experience induces stricter attentional weighting, reducing cognitive processing strain by selectively directing attention towards the most informative auditory and visual cues, and hereby mitigating the correlational strength between cognitive processing speed and AV asynchrony detection.…”

“…Previous research postulates that individual differences in cognitive processing speed, hearing acuity and AV experience may explain some of the diversity in AV asynchrony detection (Alm and Behne, 2013;Baskent and Bazo, 2011;Hay-McCutcheon et al, 2009;Lee and Noppeney, 2011;Powers et al, 2009). Whereas the influences of hearing (Baskent and Bazo, 2011;Hay-McCutcheon et al, 2009) and AV experience (Alm and Behne, 2013;Lee and Noppeney, 2011;Powers et al, 2009) have been studied to some extent, the possible correlation between cognitive processing speed and AV asynchrony detection has not been empirically tested, despite some research suggesting a connection (e.g., Hay-McCutcheon et al, 2009). The probability of such a connection is enhanced by research showing that cognitive processing speed explains much of the variation in other cognitive abilities that are likely to influence AV asynchrony detection, such as divided attention (Salthouse et al, 1995).…”

Audiovisual robustness: exploring perceptual tolerance to asynchrony and quality distortion

“…From a cognitive perspective, this may well reflect the activation of topdown processes for speech. This again might imply that the anticipation building up when observing the culmination of a physical event cannot compete with the years of training most people possess when it comes to predicting the next syllable in a stream of speech [1]. With respect to media providers, the relative intolerance to asynchrony in our selected speech excerpt serves as a reminder for particular caution when it comes to preserving synchrony for this type of content.…”