Proceeding of Fourth International Conference on Spoken Language Processing. ICSLP '96
DOI: 10.1109/icslp.1996.607899
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Seeing speech in space and time: psychological and neurological findings

Abstract: Unlike heard speech, some aspects of seen speech can be processed independently of their dynamic (temporal) characteristics. The extent to which speechreading may be supported, separately, by visual mechanisms for the analysis of still and moving events is considered in relation to some experimental findings with normal speaker/viewers, to results with neurological patients with circumscribed lesions to parts of the visual system that support the perception of movement, and to cortical imaging studies.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
7
0

Publication Types

Select...
4
2

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 6 publications
(8 citation statements)
references
References 18 publications
(16 reference statements)
1
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This notion is supported by recent evidence (Campbell, 1996;Campbell, de Haan, & Brooks, 1997) showing that reversing the brightness variations of a talking face by presenting the image in photonegative severely disrupts performance with visual speech and fails to generate McGurk responses. In a more recent investigation (Kanzaki & Campbell, 1999), using a different speaker, the effects of brightness reversal were less disruptive, although still evident.…”
Section: Luminance Variations and Their Spatial Distribution Across Tsupporting
confidence: 70%
“…This notion is supported by recent evidence (Campbell, 1996;Campbell, de Haan, & Brooks, 1997) showing that reversing the brightness variations of a talking face by presenting the image in photonegative severely disrupts performance with visual speech and fails to generate McGurk responses. In a more recent investigation (Kanzaki & Campbell, 1999), using a different speaker, the effects of brightness reversal were less disruptive, although still evident.…”
Section: Luminance Variations and Their Spatial Distribution Across Tsupporting
confidence: 70%
“…Speech perception is often multimodal (Campbell, 1996(Campbell, , 2008 visual attention] and the suggestion that multimodal information processing is atypical in FXS). Additionally, auditory memory is worse than visual memory in DS (e.g., Marcell & Armstrong, 1982), which indicates that, in at least some tasks, individuals rely more on one modality than another.…”
Section: Speech Perception In Typically Developing Childrenmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Dissimilarities between syllables could be computed in terms of differences in velocities and/or accelerations. The extent to which kinematic information alone is sufficient for visual speech perception is an ongoing topic (Campbell, 1996;Rosenblum & Saldaña, 1998). The methods of the present study could be extended to determine the extent to which perceptual dissimilarity is accounted for by kinematic dissimilarity.…”
Section: Limitations Of the Present Studymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…; see Munhall & VatikiotisBateson, 1998). Some effects of global physical stimulus factors have been examined, such as overall spatial resolution (Erber, 1979;Munhall, Kroos, Jozan, & VatikiotisBateson, 2004), viewing angle (Jordan & Thomas, 2001), presence or absence of dynamic information (Campbell, 1996;Rosenblum & Saldaña, 1998), and color and luminance (McCotter & Jordan, 2003).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%