Audiovisual sentence performance approximates the simple sum of unimodal scores, with no super-additive integration for familiar sentences¶

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? Observed audiovisual scores did not differ significantly from the additive benchmark (sum of audio-alone and visual-alone scores), t(19) = 0.72, n.s. → 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

The authors compared observed audiovisual Common Phrases scores with a simple additive model (sum of unimodal scores) as "a convenient benchmark for comparing theories that predict super-additive performance." The paired t-test showed no significant difference. No effect size was printed.

"A paired t-test on the observed and predicted scores did not show a significant difference between the two, 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
• No significant group-level difference between auditory-alone and visual-alone sentence recognition, with substantial individual modality preferences — related
• Audiovisual gain correlates positively with speech intelligibility in children with cochlear implants — related
• Children with higher auditory-alone spoken word recognition scores show higher audiovisual gain, for easy-word measures but not the hardest tests — related
• Individuals with dyslexia show impairments in audiovisual integration beyond phoneme-grapheme mapping — related