Behavioral Response Modeling to Resolve Listener- and Stimulus-Related Influences on Audiovisual Speech Integration in Cochlear Implant Users
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
OBJECTIVES: Speech intelligibility is supported by the sound of a talker's voice and visual cues related to articulatory movements. The relative contribution of auditory and visual cues to an integrated audiovisual percept varies depending on a listener's environment and sensory acuity. Cochlear implant users rely more on visual cues than those with acoustic hearing to help compensate for the fact that the auditory signal produced by their implant is poorly resolved relative to that of the typically developed cochlea. The relative weight placed on auditory and visual speech cues can be measured by presenting discordant cues across the two modalities and assessing the resulting percept (the McGurk effect). The current literature is mixed with regards to how cochlear implant users respond to McGurk stimuli; some studies suggest they report hearing syllables that represent a fusion of the auditory and visual cues more frequently than typical hearing controls while others report less frequent fusion. However, several of these studies compared implant users to younger control samples despite evidence that the likelihood and strength of audiovisual integration increase with age. Thus, the present study sought to clarify the impacts of hearing status and age on multisensory speech integration using a combination of behavioral analyses and response modeling. DESIGN: Cochlear implant users (mean age = 58.9 years), age-matched controls (mean age = 61.5 years), and younger controls (mean age = 25.9 years) completed an online audiovisual speech task. Participants were shown and/or heard four different talkers producing syllables in auditory-alone, visual-alone, and incongruent audiovisual conditions. After each trial, participants reported the syllable they heard or saw from a list of four possible options. RESULTS: The younger and older control groups performed similarly in both unisensory conditions. The cochlear implant users performed significantly better than either control group in the visual-alone condition. When responding to the incongruent audiovisual trials, cochlear implant users and age-matched controls experienced significantly more fusion than younger controls. When fusion was not experienced, younger controls were more likely to report the auditorily presented syllable than either implant users or age-matched controls. Conversely, implant users were more likely to report the visually presented syllable than either age-matched controls or younger controls. Modeling of the relationship between stimuli and behavioral responses revealed that younger controls had lower disparity thresholds (i.e., were less likely to experience a fused audiovisual percept) than either the implant users or older controls, while implant users had higher levels of sensory noise (i.e., more variability in the way a given stimulus pair is perceived across multiple presentations) than age-matched controls. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that age and cochlear implantation may have independent effects on McGurk effect perception. Noisy encoding of disparity modeling confirms that age is a strong predictor of an individual's prior likelihood of experiencing audiovisual integration but suggests that hearing status modulates this relationship due to differences in sensory noise during speech encoding. Together, these findings demonstrate that different groups of listeners can arrive at similar levels of performance in different ways, and highlight the need for careful consideration of stimulus- and group-related effects on multisensory speech perception.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,006 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».