Bilinguals Show Proportionally Greater Benefit From Visual Speech Cues and Sentence Context in Their Second Compared to Their First Language
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Speech perception in noise is challenging, but evidence suggests that it may be facilitated by visual speech cues (e.g., lip movements) and supportive sentence context in native speakers. Comparatively few studies have investigated speech perception in noise in bilinguals, and little is known about the impact of visual speech cues and supportive sentence context in a first language compared to a second language within the same individual. The current study addresses this gap by directly investigating the extent to which bilinguals benefit from visual speech cues and supportive sentence context under similarly noisy conditions in their first and second language. DESIGN: Thirty young adult English-French/French-English bilinguals were recruited from the undergraduate psychology program at Concordia University and from the Montreal community. They completed a speech perception in noise task during which they were presented with video-recorded sentences and instructed to repeat the last word of each sentence out loud. Sentences were presented in three different modalities: visual-only, auditory-only, and audiovisual. Additionally, sentences had one of two levels of context: moderate (e.g., "In the woods, the hiker saw a bear.") and low (e.g., "I had not thought about that bear."). Each participant completed this task in both their first and second language; crucially, the level of background noise was calibrated individually for each participant and was the same throughout the first language and second language (L2) portions of the experimental task. RESULTS: Overall, speech perception in noise was more accurate in bilinguals' first language compared to the second. However, participants benefited from visual speech cues and supportive sentence context to a proportionally greater extent in their second language compared to their first. At the individual level, performance during the speech perception in noise task was related to aspects of bilinguals' experience in their second language (i.e., age of acquisition, relative balance between the first and the second language). CONCLUSIONS: Bilinguals benefit from visual speech cues and sentence context in their second language during speech in noise and do so to a greater extent than in their first language given the same level of background noise. Together, this indicates that L2 speech perception can be conceptualized within an inverse effectiveness hypothesis framework with a complex interplay of sensory factors (i.e., the quality of the auditory speech signal and visual speech cues) and linguistic factors (i.e., presence or absence of supportive context and L2 experience of the listener).
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".