MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2163138440 · doi:10.1080/01690960802536357

Visual speech primes open-set recognition of spoken words

2008· article· en· W2163138440 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueLanguage and Cognitive Processes · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMultisensory perception and integration
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNational Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders
KeywordsAmodal perceptionLexical decision taskPriming (agriculture)Repetition primingSpeech perceptionPsychologyModality (human–computer interaction)PerceptionWord recognitionSet (abstract data type)Speech recognitionComputer scienceCognitionCognitive psychologyLinguisticsArtificial intelligenceReading (process)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Visual speech perception has become a topic of considerable interest to speech researchers. Previous research has demonstrated that perceivers neurally encode and use speech information from the visual modality, and this information has been found to facilitate spoken word recognition in tasks such as lexical decision (Kim, Davis, & Krins, 2004). In this paper, we used a cross-modality repetition priming paradigm with visual speech lexical primes and auditory lexical targets to explore the nature of this priming effect. First, we report that participants identified spoken words mixed with noise more accurately when the words were preceded by a visual speech prime of the same word compared with a control condition. Second, analyses of the responses indicated that both correct and incorrect responses were constrained by the visual speech information in the prime. These complementary results suggest that the visual speech primes have an effect on lexical access by increasing the likelihood that words with certain phonetic properties are selected. Third, we found that the cross-modality repetition priming effect was maintained even when visual and auditory signals came from different speakers, and thus different instances of the same lexical item. We discuss implications of these results for current theories of speech perception.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.826
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.070
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.318 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it