No significant group-level difference between auditory-alone and visual-alone sentence recognition, with substantial individual modality preferences¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · q3
Currency · newest study 2001 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? There was no significant difference between auditory-alone and visual-alone performance, t(19) = −0.72, n.s.; individually, eight children had higher visual-alone scores, nine higher auditory-alone, and three equal. → Lorin Lachs 2001

Evidence¶

Lorin Lachs 2001¶

Lorin Lachs, David B. Pisoni, and Karen Iler Kirk. (2001). Use of Audiovisual Information in Speech Perception by Prelingually Deaf Children with Cochlear Implants. Ear Hear. 2001 June ; 22(3): 236–251. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/

q3 · i? · causal · r1

Paired comparison of unimodal Common Phrases Test scores for the 20 children tested in both conditions. The article reports "no significant difference between performance in the two “unimodal” presentation conditions"; equivalence was not tested beyond this nonsignificant test. No effect size was printed.

"it is important to note here that there was no significant difference between performance in the two “unimodal” presentation conditions: auditory-alone and visual-alone, t(19) = −0.72, n.s."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Audiovisual presentation yields significantly higher sentence recognition than auditory-alone presentation for most children with cochlear implants — related
• Audiovisual sentence performance approximates the simple sum of unimodal scores, with no super-additive integration for familiar sentences — related
• Children with higher auditory-alone spoken word recognition scores show higher audiovisual gain, for easy-word measures but not the hardest tests — related
• Audiovisual attention decomposition via forward encoding and variance partitioning yields VAC, AAC, and SAC as surrogate indicators, not direct measures of attention — related