Loss of Central Vision and Audiovisual Speech Perception
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Communication impairments pose a major threat to an individual's quality of life. However, the impact of visual impairments on communication is not well understood, despite the important role that vision plays in the perception of speech. Here we present 2 experiments examining the impact of discrete central scotomas on speech perception. In the first experiment, 4 patients with central vision loss due to unilateral macular holes identified utterances with conflicting auditory-visual information, while simultaneously having their eye movements recorded. Each eye was tested individually. Three participants showed similar speech perception with both the impaired eye and the unaffected eye. For 1 participant, speech perception was disrupted by the scotoma because the participant did not shift gaze to avoid obscuring the talker's mouth with the scotoma. In the second experiment, 12 undergraduate students with gaze-contingent artificial scotomas (10 visual degrees in diameter) identified sentences in background noise. These larger scotomas disrupted speech perception, but some participants overcame this by adopting a gaze strategy whereby they shifted gaze to prevent obscuring important regions of the face such as the mouth. Participants who did not spontaneously adopt an adaptive gaze strategy did not learn to do so over the course of 5 days; however, participants who began with adaptive gaze strategies became more consistent in their gaze location. These findings confirm that peripheral vision is sufficient for perception of most visual information in speech, and suggest that training in gaze strategy may be worthwhile for individuals with communication deficits due to visual impairments.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".