![]() ![]() No interaction was however, observed between modality and response. In the presence of acoustic noise, the audiovisual modality led to both faster and more accurate responses than the auditory modality. Overall, oral responses were faster than manual ones, but it also appeared that they were less accurate in noise, which suggests that motor representations evoked by the speech input could be rough at a first processing stage. To this aim, both oral and manual responses were evaluated during the perception of auditory and audiovisual speech stimuli, clear or embedded in white noise. In this study, we attempted to combine these two paradigms by testing whether the visual modality could speed motor response in a close-shadowing task. Another argument is provided by audiovisual interactions often interpreted as referring to a multisensory-motor framework. The fact that close-shadowing can occur very rapidly and much faster than manual identification of the speech target is taken to suggest that perceptually induced speech representations are already shaped in a motor-compatible format. One classical argument in favor of a functional role of the motor system in speech perception comes from the close-shadowing task in which a subject has to identify and to repeat as quickly as possible an auditory speech stimulus. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |