Effects of Context Type on Lipreading and Listening Performance and Implications for Sentence Processing

• Published in: Journal of speech, language, and hearing research language, and hearing research, 2015-06, Vol.58 (3), p.1093-1102
• Main Authors: Spehar, Brent, Goebel, Stacey, Tye-Murray, Nancy
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Acoustic Stimulation - methods; Acoustics; Aging (Individuals); Auditory Perception; Breakdowns; Child; Child Language; Circuses; Cochlear Implantation; Communication Strategies; Context Effect; Correlation; Cues; Discrimination, Psychological; Elephants; Evaluation; Hearing; Hearing Aids; Hearing Disorders - psychology; Hearing Tests; Humans; Language Processing; Lipreading; Listening Comprehension; Listening Skills; Noise; Patients; Pattern Recognition, Physiological; Phonetics; Pictorial Stimuli; Psychological Tests; Rehabilitation; Rehabilitation Programs; Semantics; Semiotics; Sentences; Sentences (Grammar); Social Class; Speech; Speech Perception; Speech Production Measurement; Stimuli; Tests; Verbal communication; Word Recognition
• ISSN: 1092-4388; 1558-9102
• DOI: 10.1044/2015_JSLHR-H-14-0360

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 sentence-based 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.