A single-band envelope cue as a supplement to speechreading of segmentals: a comparison of auditory versus tactual presentation.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to compare the effects of a single-band envelope cue as a supplement to speechreading of segmentals and sentences when presented through either the auditory or tactual modality.

DESIGN

The supplementary signal, which consisted of a 200-Hz carrier amplitude-modulated by the envelope of an octave band of speech centered at 500 Hz, was presented through a high-performance single-channel vibrator for tactual stimulation or through headphones for auditory stimulation. Normal-hearing subjects were trained and tested on the identification of a set of 16 medial vowels in /b/-V-/d/ context and a set of 24 initial consonants in C-/a/-C context under five conditions: speechreading alone (S), auditory supplement alone (A), tactual supplement alone (T), speechreading combined with the auditory supplement (S+A), and speechreading combined with the tactual supplement (S+T). Performance on various speech features was examined to determine the contribution of different features toward improvements under the aided conditions for each modality. Performance on the combined conditions (S+A and S+T) was compared with predictions generated from a quantitative model of multi-modal performance. To explore the relationship between benefits for segmentals and for connected speech within the same subjects, sentence reception was also examined for the three conditions of S, S+A, and S+T.

RESULTS

For segmentals, performance generally followed the pattern of T < A < S < S+T < S+A. Significant improvements to speechreading were observed with both the tactual and auditory supplements for consonants (10 and 23 percentage-point improvements, respectively), but only with the auditory supplement for vowels (a 10 percentage-point improvement). The results of the feature analyses indicated that improvements to speechreading arose primarily from improved performance on the features low and tense for vowels and on the features voicing, nasality, and plosion for consonants. These improvements were greater for auditory relative to tactual presentation. When predicted percent-correct scores for the multi-modal conditions were compared with observed scores, the predicted values always exceeded observed values and the predictions were somewhat more accurate for the S+A than for the S+T conditions. For sentences, significant improvements to speechreading were observed with both the auditory and tactual supplements for high-context materials but again only with the auditory supplement for low-context materials. The tactual supplement provided a relative gain to speechreading of roughly 25% for all materials except low-context sentences (where gain was only 10%), whereas the auditory supplement provided relative gains of roughly 50% (for vowels, consonants, and low-context sentences) to 75% (for high-context sentences).

CONCLUSIONS

The envelope cue provides a significant benefit to the speechreading of consonant segments when presented through either the auditory or tactual modality and of vowel segments through audition only. These benefits were found to be related to the reception of the same types of features under both modalities (voicing, manner, and plosion for consonants and low and tense for vowels); however, benefits were larger for auditory compared with tactual presentation. The benefits observed for segmentals appear to carry over into benefits for sentence reception under both modalities.