title: Does visual speech information affect word segmentation?
abstract: We present an experiment in which we explored the extent to which visual speech information affects learners' ability to segment words from a fluent speech stream. Learners were presented with a set of sentences consisting of novel words, in which the only cues to the location of word boundaries were the transitional probabilities between syllables. They were exposed to this language through the auditory modality only, through the visual modality only (where the learners saw the speaker producing the sentences but did not hear anything), or through both the auditory and visual modalities. The learners were successful at segmenting words from the speech stream under all three training conditions. These data suggest that visual speech information has a positive effect on word segmentation performance, at least under some circumstances.
authors.affiliation: Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida 32306, USA. asell@psy.fsu.edu
authors.forename: Andrea J
authors.initials: AJ
authors.lastname: Sell
authors.forename: Michael P
authors.initials: MP
authors.lastname: Kaschak
mesh_terms: D001288:Attention; D006801:Humans; D008085:Lipreading; D010700:Phonetics; D011578:Psycholinguistics; D011932:Reading; D012660:Semantics; D013067:Speech Perception; D014706:Verbal Learning
references.citation: Perception. 1977;6(1):31-40
references.pmid: 840618
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2003 Dec;29(6):1143-54
references.pmid: 14640835
references.citation: Nature. 1976 Dec 23-30;264(5588):746-8
references.pmid: 1012311
references.citation: Cognition. 2005 Sep;97(2):B25-34
references.pmid: 16226557
references.citation: Dev Psychol. 2003 Jul;39(4):706-16
references.pmid: 12859124
references.citation: Infancy. 2005 Jan;7(1):53-71
references.pmid: 33430544
references.citation: Cognition. 1999 Mar 1;70(2):109-35
references.pmid: 10349760
references.citation: Psychol Sci. 2007 May;18(5):392-6
references.pmid: 17576277
references.citation: Br J Psychol. 2001 May;92(Pt 2):339-55
references.pmid: 11417785
references.citation: Science. 1996 Dec 13;274(5294):1926-8
references.pmid: 8943209
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2000 Oct;26(5):1570-82
references.pmid: 11039485
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Gen. 2005 Nov;134(4):477-500
references.pmid: 16316287
references.citation: Cognition. 2008 Jul;108(1):271-80
references.pmid: 18355803
references.citation: Science. 1982 Dec 10;218(4577):1138-41
references.pmid: 7146899
references.citation: Cognition. 2008 Sep;108(3):850-5
references.pmid: 18590910
references.citation: Psychol Sci. 2007 Mar;18(3):254-60
references.pmid: 17444923
references.citation: Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2008 Dec;17(6):405-409
references.pmid: 23914077
references.citation: Percept Psychophys. 2007 Feb;69(2):218-31
references.pmid: 17557592
references.citation: Cogn Sci. 2006 Jan 2;30(1):43-63
references.pmid: 21702808
references.citation: Child Dev. 2005 May-Jun;76(3):598-613
references.pmid: 15892781
references.citation: Psychol Rev. 1990 Apr;97(2):225-52
references.pmid: 2186424