Effects of context type on lipreading and listening performance and implications for sentence processing

15Citations
Citations of this article
51Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Purpose: This study compared the use of 2 different types of contextual cues (sentence based and situation based) in 2 different modalities (visual only and auditory only). Method: Twenty young adults were tested with the Illustrated Sentence Test (Tye-Murray, Hale, Spehar, Myerson, & Sommers, 2014) and the Speech Perception in Noise Test (Bilger, Nuetzel, Rabinowitz, & Rzeczkowski, 1984; Kalikow, Stevens, & Elliott, 1977) in the 2 modalities. The Illustrated Sentences Test presents sentences with no context and sentences accompanied by picture-based situational context cues. The Speech Perception in Noise Test presents sentences with low sentence-based context and sentences with high sentence-based context. Results: Participants benefited from both types of context and received more benefit when testing occurred in the visual-only modality than when it occurred in the auditory-only modality. Participants’ use of sentencebased context did not correlate with use of situation based context. Cue usage did not correlate between the 2 modalities. Conclusions: The ability to use contextual cues appears to be dependent on the type of cue and the presentation modality of the target word(s). In a theoretical sense, the results suggest that models of word recognition and sentence processing should incorporate the influence of multiple sources of information and recognize that the 2 types of context have different influences on speech perception. In a clinical sense, the results suggest that aural rehabilitation programs might provide training to optimize use of both kinds of contextual cues.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Spehar, B., & Goebel, S. (2015). Effects of context type on lipreading and listening performance and implications for sentence processing. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 58(3), 1093–1102. https://doi.org/10.1044/2015_JSLHR-H-14-0360

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free