Home  ›  Difference Between Lip Reading and Speech Reading

Difference Between Lip Reading and Speech Reading

Written By Friday, 4 March 2022 Add Comment Edit

Technique of agreement oral communication when sound is non available

Lip reading, too known equally speechreading, is a technique of understanding speech by visually interpreting the movements of the lips, face and natural language when normal sound is non bachelor. It relies also on information provided by the context, knowledge of the linguistic communication, and any residual hearing. Although lip reading is used most extensively by deaf and hard-of-hearing people, most people with normal hearing process some speech information from sight of the moving oral fissure.[1]

Process [edit]

Although speech perception is considered to be an auditory skill, it is intrinsically multimodal, since producing speech requires the speaker to make movements of the lips, teeth and tongue which are often visible in face-to-face advice. Data from the lips and face supports audible comprehension[2] and most fluent listeners of a language are sensitive to seen speech communication deportment (encounter McGurk outcome). The extent to which people make use of seen speech communication actions varies with the visibility of the spoken communication action and the knowledge and skill of the perceiver.

Phonemes and visemes [edit]

The phoneme is the smallest detectable unit of sound in a language that serves to distinguish words from ane some other. /pit/ and /pik/ differ by 1 phoneme and refer to dissimilar concepts. Spoken English has about 44 phonemes. For lip reading, the number of visually distinctive units - visemes - is much smaller, thus several phonemes map onto a few visemes. This is considering many phonemes are produced within the mouth and throat, and cannot exist seen. These include glottal consonants and well-nigh gestures of the natural language. Voiced and unvoiced pairs expect identical, such as [p] and [b], [k] and [g], [t] and [d], [f] and [5], and [s] and [z]; too for nasalisation (e.yard. [m] vs. [b]). Homophenes are words that look similar when lip read, only which comprise different phonemes. Because there are about three times as many phonemes as visemes in English, it is oft claimed that only 30% of speech tin be lip read. Homophenes are a crucial source of mis-lip reading.

The legend to this puzzle reads "Here is a class of a dozen boys, who, existence chosen up to give their names were photographed past the instantaneous procedure just as each ane was commencing to pronounce his own proper noun. The twelve names were Oom, Alden, Eastman, Alfred, Arthur, Luke, Fletcher, Matthew, Theodore, Richard, Shirmer, and Hisswald. At present information technology would not seem possible to exist able to requite the correct name to each of the twelve boys, but if you practise the list over to each one, yous will find it not a difficult task to locate the proper name for every ane of the boys."[iii]

Co-articulation [edit]

Visemes can be captured as still images, only speech unfolds in time. The smooth articulation of oral communication sounds in sequence can mean that mouth patterns may exist 'shaped' by an adjacent phoneme: the 'th' sound in 'molar' and in 'teeth' appears very unlike because of the vocalic context. This feature of dynamic speech communication-reading affects lip-reading 'beyond the viseme'.[4]

How can information technology 'work' with so few visemes? [edit]

The statistical distribution of phonemes inside the lexicon of a language is uneven. While there are clusters of words which are phonemically similar to each other ('lexical neighbors', such equally spit/sip/sit/stick...etc.), others are dissimilar all other words: they are 'unique' in terms of the distribution of their phonemes ('umbrella' may be an example). Skilled users of the language bring this noesis to acquit when interpreting speech communication, so it is generally harder to identify a heard give-and-take with many lexical neighbors than i with few neighbors. Applying this insight to seen speech, some words in the language can be unambiguously lip-read even when they incorporate few visemes - merely because no other words could peradventure 'fit'.[5]

Variation in readability and skill [edit]

Many factors affect the visibility of a speaking face, including illumination, movement of the head/camera, frame-rate of the moving image and altitude from the viewer (run across e.g.[6]). Head move that accompanies normal speech can also improve lip-reading, independently of oral actions.[7] Yet, when lip-reading continued spoken language, the viewer's knowledge of the spoken language, familiarity with the speaker and style of spoken communication, and the context of the lip-read material[eight] are as of import as the visibility of the speaker. While virtually hearing people are sensitive to seen speech, there is great variability in private speechreading skill. Good lipreaders are often more accurate than poor lipreaders at identifying phonemes from visual speech.

A unproblematic visemic measure of 'lipreadability' has been questioned by some researchers. The 'phoneme equivalence class' measure takes into account the statistical construction of the lexicon[9] and can also accommodate private differences in lip-reading power.[ten] [11] In line with this, excellent lipreading is ofttimes associated with more wide-based cognitive skills including general language proficiency, executive function and working retentivity.[12] [13]

Lipreading and language learning in hearing infants and children [edit]

The first few months [edit]

Seeing the oral cavity plays a role in the very young baby'southward early sensitivity to speech, and prepares them to go speakers at i – 2 years. In guild to imitate, a baby must learn to shape their lips in accordance with the sounds they hear; seeing the speaker may help them to practise this.[14] Newborns imitate adult mouth movements such as sticking out the natural language or opening the oral fissure, which could be a forerunner to further imitation and later language learning.[15] Infants are disturbed when audiovisual speech of a familiar speaker is desynchronized [16] and tend to show unlike looking patterns for familiar than for unfamiliar faces when matched to (recorded) voices.[17] Infants are sensitive to McGurk illusions months earlier they take learned to speak.[18] [19] These studies and many more point to a function for vision in the development of sensitivity to (auditory) speech communication in the start half-year of life.

The next half dozen months; a role in learning a native language [edit]

Until effectually six months of historic period, near hearing infants are sensitive to a wide range of speech gestures - including ones that tin can exist seen on the oral fissure - which may or may non later be role of the phonology of their native language. But in the 2d 6 months of life, the hearing baby shows perceptual narrowing for the phonetic structure of their own language - and may lose the early sensitivity to mouth patterns that are not useful. The oral communication sounds /v/ and /b/ which are visemically distinctive in English but non in Castilian Spanish are accurately distinguished in Spanish-exposed and English-exposed babies up to the age of around 6 months. Withal, older Spanish-exposed infants lose the ability to 'see' this stardom, while information technology is retained for English-exposed infants.[20] Such studies suggest that rather than hearing and vision developing in independent ways in infancy, multimodal processing is the rule, not the exception, in (language) development of the baby brain.[21]

Early language production: one to two years [edit]

Given the many studies indicating a role for vision in the evolution of linguistic communication in the pre-lingual infant, the effects of built blindness on language evolution are surprisingly small. 18-month-olds learn new words more readily when they hear them, and exercise non learn them when they are shown the speech movements without hearing.[22] However, children blind from birth tin confuse /thou/ and /n/ in their ain early on production of English words – a confusion rarely seen in sighted hearing children, since /thousand/ and /northward/ are visibly distinctive, but auditorially confusable.[23] The role of vision in children aged 1–2 years may exist less disquisitional to the product of their native language, since, past that age, they have attained the skills they need to identify and imitate speech sounds. However, hearing a non-native language tin shift the child'south attention to visual and auditory engagement past way of lipreading and listening in club to process, empathise and produce speech.[24]

In babyhood [edit]

Studies with pre-lingual infants and children use indirect, not-exact measures to indicate sensitivity to seen spoken communication. Explicit lip-reading tin can be reliably tested in hearing preschoolers by asking them to 'say aloud what I say silently'.[25] In school-age children, lipreading of familiar closed-fix words such as number words can exist readily elicited.[26] Individual differences in lip-reading skill, as tested past asking the child to 'speak the give-and-take that you lip-read', or by matching a lip-read utterance to a picture,[27] bear witness a relationship betwixt lip-reading skill and age.[28] [29]

In hearing adults: lifespan considerations [edit]

While lip-reading silent spoken communication poses a challenge for most hearing people, adding sight of the speaker to heard spoken communication improves speech processing under many conditions. The mechanisms for this, and the precise means in which lip-reading helps, are topics of current enquiry.[xxx] Seeing the speaker helps at all levels of spoken communication processing from phonetic feature bigotry to interpretation of pragmatic utterances.[31] The positive effects of calculation vision to heard voice communication are greater in noisy than quiet environments,[32] where by making spoken communication perception easier, seeing the speaker can costless upwardly cognitive resources, enabling deeper processing of speech content.

As hearing becomes less reliable in old-age people may tend to rely more than on lip-reading, and are encouraged to do so. Yet, greater reliance on lip-reading may non always brand adept the furnishings of historic period-related hearing loss. Cognitive decline in aging may be preceded by and/or associated with measurable hearing loss.[33] [34] Thus lipreading may not e'er be able to fully compensate for the combined hearing and cognitive age-related decrements.

In specific (hearing) populations [edit]

A number of studies report anomalies of lipreading in populations with distinctive developmental disorders. Autism: People with autism may show reduced lipreading abilities and reduced reliance on vision in audiovisual spoken communication perception.[35] [36] This may be associated with gaze-to-the-face anomalies in these people.[37] Williams syndrome: People with Williams syndrome bear witness some deficits in speechreading which may be contained of their visuo-spatial difficulties.[38] Specific Language Harm: Children with SLI are besides reported to bear witness reduced lipreading sensitivity,[39] equally are people with dyslexia.[twoscore]

Deafness [edit]

Debate has raged for hundreds of years over the function of lip-reading ('oralism') compared with other communication methods (near recently, total communication) in the education of deaf people. The extent to which one or other approach is beneficial depends on a range of factors, including level of hearing loss of the deafened person, historic period of hearing loss, parental interest and parental linguistic communication(south). So there is a question concerning the aims of the deaf person and their community and carers. Is the aim of education to enhance communication generally, to develop sign linguistic communication as a starting time language, or to develop skills in the spoken communication of the hearing community? Researchers now focus on which aspects of language and communication may be best delivered by what means and in which contexts, given the hearing status of the child and her family, and their educational plans.[41] Bimodal bilingualism (proficiency in both speech and sign language) is one dominant current arroyo in linguistic communication education for the deaf child.[42]

Deaf people are oft better lip-readers than people with normal hearing.[43] Some deaf people practice equally professional lipreaders, for instance in forensic lipreading. In deaf people who have a cochlear implant, pre-implant lip-reading skill can predict postal service-implant (auditory or audiovisual) speech processing.[44] For many deaf people, access to speech communication can be helped when a spoken message is relayed via a trained, professional lip-speaker.[45] [46]

In connection with lipreading and literacy evolution, children built-in deaf typically show delayed development of literacy skills[47] which can reflect difficulties in acquiring elements of the spoken linguistic communication.[48] In particular, reliable phoneme-graphic symbol mapping may be more than hard for deaf children, who demand to exist skilled oral communication-readers in lodge to primary this necessary pace in literacy acquisition. Lip-reading skill is associated with literacy abilities in deafened adults and children[49] [50] and preparation in lipreading may help to develop literacy skills.[51]

Cued Speech communication uses lipreading with accompanying hand shapes that disambiguate the visemic (consonant) lipshape. Cued speech is said to be easier for hearing parents to learn than a sign language, and studies, primarily from Belgium, show that a deaf child exposed to cued oral communication in infancy can brand more efficient progress in learning a spoken linguistic communication than from lipreading alone .[52] The utilise of cued speech in cochlear implantation for deafness is likely to be positive.[53] A similar arroyo, involving the use of handshapes accompanying seen speech, is Visual Phonics, which is used by some educators to support the learning of written and spoken language.

Educational activity and training [edit]

The aim of instruction and training in lipreading is to develop sensation of the nature of lipreading, and to do means of improving the ability to perceive spoken communication 'past heart'.[54] Lipreading classes, frequently called lipreading and managing hearing loss classes, are mainly aimed at adults who have hearing loss. The highest proportion of adults with hearing loss have an age-related, or noise-related loss; with both of these forms of hearing loss, the high-frequency sounds are lost first. Since many of the consonants in speech are high-frequency sounds, speech becomes distorted. Hearing aids help only may not cure this. Lipreading classes take been shown to be of benefit in Uk studies commissioned past the Action on Hearing Loss charity[55] (2012).

Trainers recognise that lipreading is an inexact art. Students are taught to sentinel the lips, tongue and jaw movements, to follow the stress and rhythm of language, to use their residual hearing, with or without hearing aids, to lookout man expression and body language, and to use their ability to reason and deduce. They are taught the lipreaders' alphabet, groups of sounds that wait alike on the lips (visemes) like p, b, grand, or f, v. The aim is to go the gist, so as to have the confidence to join in conversation and avert the damaging social isolation that often accompanies hearing loss. Lipreading classes are recommended for anyone who struggles to hear in noise, and help to adjust to hearing loss. ATLA(Association for Instruction Lipreading to Adults) is the U.k. professional association for qualified lipreading tutors.

Tests [edit]

Most tests of lipreading were devised to measure out individual differences in performing specific speech-processing tasks and to discover changes in performance following training. Lipreading tests have been used with relatively small groups in experimental settings, or as clinical indicators with individual patients and clients. That is, lipreading tests to engagement take express validity every bit markers of lipreading skill in the general population.

Lipreading and lip-speaking by machine [edit]

Automatic lip-reading has been a topic of interest in computational engineering, as well as in science fiction movies. The computational engineer Steve Omohundro, amidst others, pioneered its development. In facial animation, the aim is to generate realistic facial actions, especially mouth movements, that simulate human voice communication actions. Computer algorithms to deform or dispense images of faces can be driven by heard or written language. Systems may be based on detailed models derived from facial movements (movement capture); on anatomical modelling of actions of the jaw, mouth and tongue; or on mapping of known viseme- phoneme backdrop.[56] [57] Facial animation has been used in speechreading preparation (demonstrating how different sounds 'wait').[58] These systems are a subset of speech synthesis modelling which aim to deliver reliable 'text-to-(seen)-spoken communication' outputs. A complementary aim—the reverse of making faces motility in speech communication—is to develop computer algorithms that tin evangelize realistic interpretations of spoken language (i.e. a written transcript or audio tape) from natural video data of a face in action: this is facial oral communication recognition. These models too can exist sourced from a variety of information.[59] Automated visual voice communication recognition from video has been quite successful in distinguishing dissimilar languages (from a corpus of speech communication data).[60] Demonstration models, using machine-learning algorithms, have had some success in lipreading spoken language elements, such as specific words, from video[61] and for identifying hard-to-lipread phonemes from visemically similar seen oral fissure deportment.[62] Auto-based speechreading is now making successful use of neural-net based algorithms which use large databases of speakers and speech textile (following the successful model for auditory automatic speech recognition).[63]

Uses for motorcar lipreading could include automated lipreading of video-just records, automated lipreading of speakers with damaged vocal tracts, and spoken language processing in face-to-face video (i.due east. from videophone data). Automated lipreading may help in processing noisy or unfamiliar speech communication.[64] Automated lipreading may contribute to biometric person identification, replacing password-based identification.[65] [66]

The encephalon [edit]

Post-obit the discovery that auditory brain regions, including Heschl'southward gyrus, were activated past seen speech,[67] the neural circuitry for speechreading was shown to include supra-modal processing regions, especially superior temporal sulcus (all parts) besides equally posterior inferior occipital-temporal regions including regions specialised for the processing of faces and biological motion.[68] In some but not all studies, activation of Broca'south expanse is reported for speechreading,[69] [70] suggesting that articulatory mechanisms tin be activated in speechreading.[71] Studies of the time form of audiovisual speech processing showed that sight of speech tin can prime auditory processing regions in accelerate of the acoustic betoken.[72] [73] Better lipreading skill is associated with greater activation in (left) superior temporal sulcus and side by side inferior temporal (visual) regions in hearing people.[74] [75] In deaf people, the circuitry devoted to speechreading appears to exist very similar to that in hearing people, with like associations of (left) superior temporal activation and lipreading skill.[76]

References [edit]

  1. ^ Woodhouse, L; Hickson, 50; Dodd, B (2009). "Review of visual voice communication perception by hearing and hearing-impaired people: clinical implications". International Periodical of Language and Communication Disorders. 44 (iii): 253–lxx. doi:ten.1080/13682820802090281. PMID 18821117.
  2. ^ Erber, NP (1969). "Interaction of audition and vision in the recognition of oral speech stimuli". J Speech Hear Res. 12 (2): 423–5. doi:10.1044/jshr.1202.423. PMID 5808871.
  3. ^ Sam Loyd'south Concordance of Puzzles, 1914
  4. ^ Benguerel, AP; Pichora-Fuller, MK (1982). "Coarticulation furnishings in lipreading". J Spoken communication Hear Res. 25 (iv): 600–7. doi:x.1044/jshr.2504.600. PMID 7162162.
  5. ^ Auer, ET (2010). "Investigating speechreading and deafness". Periodical of the American Academy of Audiology. 21 (3): 163–8. doi:10.3766/jaaa.21.3.4. PMC3715375. PMID 20211120.
  6. ^ Jordan, TR; Thomas, SM (2011). "When half a face is as good every bit a whole: effects of unproblematic substantial occlusion on visual and audiovisual speech perception". Atten Percept Psychophys. 73 (7): 2270–85. doi:x.3758/s13414-011-0152-four. PMID 21842332.
  7. ^ Thomas, SM; Jordan, TR (2004). "Contributions of oral and extraoral facial movement to visual and audiovisual voice communication perception". J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. xxx (five): 873–88. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.xxx.5.873. PMID 15462626.
  8. ^ Spehar, B; Goebel, S; Tye-Murray, Northward (2015). "Effects of Context Blazon on Lipreading and Listening Performance and Implications for Judgement Processing". J Speech Lang Hear Res. 58 (3): 1093–102. doi:10.1044/2015_JSLHR-H-14-0360. PMC4610295. PMID 25863923.
  9. ^ Files, BT; Tjan, BS; Jiang, J; Bernstein, LE (2015). "Visual speech discrimination and identification of natural and constructed consonant stimuli". Forepart Psychol. 6: 878. doi:x.3389/fpsyg.2015.00878. PMC4499841. PMID 26217249.
  10. ^ Auer, ET; Bernstein, LE (1997). "Speechreading and the structure of the lexicon: computationally modeling the effects of reduced phonetic distinctiveness on lexical uniqueness". J Acoust Soc Am. 102 (vi): 3704–x. Bibcode:1997ASAJ..102.3704A. doi:10.1121/one.420402. PMID 9407662.
  11. ^ Feld J1, Sommers Chiliad 2011 There Goes the Neighborhood: Lipreading and the Structure of the Mental Lexicon. Speech Commun. Feb;53(2):220-228
  12. ^ Tye-Murray, Due north; Hale, S; Spehar, B; Myerson, J; Sommers, MS (2014). "Lipreading in schoolhouse-historic period children: the roles of historic period, hearing status, and cognitive ability". J Speech Lang Hear Res. 57 (2): 556–65. doi:ten.1044/2013_JSLHR-H-12-0273. PMC5736322. PMID 24129010.
  13. ^ Feld, JE; Sommers, MS (2009). "Lipreading, processing speed, and working retention in younger and older adults". J Speech Lang Hear Res. 52 (six): 1555–65. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2009/08-0137). PMC3119632. PMID 19717657.
  14. ^ "HuffPost - Breaking News, U.S. and World News". HuffPost . Retrieved 2020-ten-11 .
  15. ^ Meltzoff, AN; Moore, MK (1977). "Imitation of facial and manual gestures by human neonates". Science. 198 (4312): 74–8. doi:10.1126/scientific discipline.897687. PMID 897687.
  16. ^ Dodd B.1976 Lip reading in infants: attention to speech presented in- and out-of-synchrony. Cognitive Psychology Oct;xi(4):478-84
  17. ^ Spelke, Due east (1976). "Infants intermodal perception of events". Cognitive Psychology. 8 (four): 553–560. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(76)90018-9. S2CID 1226796.
  18. ^ Burnham, D; Dodd, B (2004). "Auditory-visual voice communication integration by prelinguistic infants: perception of an emergent consonant in the McGurk effect". Developmental Psychobiology. 45 (4): 204–20. doi:10.1002/dev.20032. PMID 15549685.
  19. ^ Rosenblum, LD; Schmuckler, MA; Johnson, JA (1997). "The McGurk result in infants". Percept Psychophys. 59 (3): 347–57. doi:10.3758/BF03211902. PMID 9136265.
  20. ^ Pons, F; et al. (2009). "Narrowing of intersensory speech perception in infancy". Proceedings of the National University of Sciences. 106 (26): 10598–602. Bibcode:2009PNAS..10610598P. doi:10.1073/pnas.0904134106. PMC2705579. PMID 19541648.
  21. ^ Lewkowicz, DJ; Ghazanfar, AA (2009). "The emergence of multisensory systems through perceptual narrowing". Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 13 (11): 470–eight. CiteSeerXten.1.ane.554.4323. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2009.08.004. PMID 19748305. S2CID 14289579.
  22. ^ Havy, M., Foroud, A., Fais, 50., & Werker, J.F. (in press; online January 26, 2017). The part of auditory and visual speech in word-learning at eighteen months and in adulthood. Child Development. (Pre-impress version)
  23. ^ Mills, A.E. 1987 The development of phonology in the bullheaded child. In B.Dodd & R.Campbell(Eds) Hearing by Middle: the psychology of lipreading, Hove United kingdom of great britain and northern ireland, Lawrence Erlbaum Assembly
  24. ^ Lewkowicz, DJ; Hansen-Tift, AM (Jan 2012). "Infants deploy selective attention to the mouth of a talking confront when learning speech". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 109 (5): 1431–half-dozen. Bibcode:2012PNAS..109.1431L. doi:10.1073/pnas.1114783109. PMC3277111. PMID 22307596.
  25. ^ Davies R1, Kidd Due east; Lander, K (2009). "Investigating the psycholinguistic correlates of speechreading in preschool age children". International Journal of Linguistic communication and Communication Disorders. 44 (2): 164–74. doi:10.1080/13682820801997189. hdl:11858/00-001M-0000-002E-2344-eight. PMID 18608607.
  26. ^ Dodd B. 1987 The acquisition of lipreading skills by normally hearing children. In B.Dodd & R.Campbell (Eds) Hearing by Eye, Erlbaum NJ pp163-176
  27. ^ Jerger, S; et al. (2009). "Developmental shifts in children's sensitivity to visual speech: a new multimodal movie-word task". J Exp Child Psychol. 102 (1): 40–59. doi:x.1016/j.jecp.2008.08.002. PMC2612128. PMID 18829049.
  28. ^ Kyle, FE; Campbell, R; Mohammed, T; Coleman, Grand; MacSweeney, One thousand (2013). "Speechreading development in deafened and hearing children: introducing the exam of child speechreading". Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Enquiry. 56 (2): 416–26. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2012/12-0039). PMC4920223. PMID 23275416.
  29. ^ Tye-Murray, N; Hale, Southward; Spehar, B; Myerson, J; Sommers, MS (2014). "Lipreading in school-age children: the roles of historic period, hearing status, and cognitive ability". J Speech Lang Hear Res. 57 (2): 556–65. doi:x.1044/2013_JSLHR-H-12-0273. PMC5736322. PMID 24129010.
  30. ^ Peelle, JE; Sommers, MS (2015). "Prediction and constraint in audiovisual speech communication perception". Cortex. 68: 169–81. doi:ten.1016/j.cortex.2015.03.006. PMC4475441. PMID 25890390.
  31. ^ Campbell, R (2008). "The processing of audio-visual speech: empirical and neural bases". Philosophical Transactions of the Purple Society B. 363 (1493): 1001–1010. doi:10.1098/rstb.2007.2155. PMC2606792. PMID 17827105.
  32. ^ Sumby, WH; Pollack, I (1954). "Visual contribution to speech intelligibility in racket". Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. 26 (2): 212–215. Bibcode:1954ASAJ...26..212S. doi:10.1121/i.1907309.
  33. ^ Taljaard, Schmulian; et al. (2015). "The relationship between hearing impairment and cognitive part: A meta-assay in adults" (PDF). Clin Otolaryngol. 41 (vi): 718–729. doi:ten.1111/coa.12607. hdl:2263/60768. PMID 26670203. S2CID 5327755.
  34. ^ Hung, SC; et al. (2015). "Hearing Loss is Associated With Risk of Alzheimer's Illness: A Case-Control Study in Older People". J Epidemiol. 25 (8): 517–21. doi:x.2188/jea.JE20140147. PMC4517989. PMID 25986155.
  35. ^ Smith, EG; Bennetto, Fifty.J (2007). "Audiovisual voice communication integration and lipreading in autism". Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. 48 (8): 813–21. doi:x.1111/j.1469-7610.2007.01766.x. PMID 17683453.
  36. ^ Irwin, JR; Tornatore, LA; Brancazio, L; Whalen, DH (2011). "Can children with autism spectrum disorders "hear" a speaking face up?". Kid Dev. 82 (five): 1397–403. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2011.01619.x. PMC3169706. PMID 21790542.
  37. ^ Irwin, JR; Brancazio, L (2014). "Seeing to hear? Patterns of gaze to speaking faces in children with autism spectrum disorders". Front end Psychol. 5: 397. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00397. PMC4021198. PMID 24847297.
  38. ^ Böhning, M; Campbell, R; Karmiloff-Smith, A (2002). "Audiovisual speech communication perception in Williams syndrome". Neuropsychologia. 40 (viii): 1396–406. doi:10.1016/s0028-3932(01)00208-ane. PMID 11931944. S2CID 9125298.
  39. ^ Leybaert, J; Macchi, 50; Huyse, A; Champoux, F; Bayard, C; Colin, C; Berthommier, F (2014). "Atypical audio-visual oral communication perception and McGurk effects in children with specific linguistic communication harm". Front Psychol. 5: 422. doi:ten.3389/fpsyg.2014.00422. PMC4033223. PMID 24904454.
  40. ^ Mohammed T1, Campbell R; Macsweeney, K; Barry, F; Coleman, Grand (2006). "Speechreading and its association with reading among deaf, hearing and dyslexic individuals". Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics. 20 (7–8): 621–30. doi:10.1080/02699200500266745. PMID 17056494. S2CID 34877573.
  41. ^ "Hands & Voices :: Articles".
  42. ^ Swanwick, R (2016). "Deafened Children's bimodal bilingualism and education" (PDF). Language Pedagogy. 49 (ane): 1–34. doi:ten.1017/S0261444815000348. S2CID 146626144.
  43. ^ Bernstein, LE; Demorest, ME; Tucker, PE (2000). "Spoken communication perception without hearing". Perception & Psychophysics. 62 (ii): 233–52. doi:x.3758/bf03205546. PMID 10723205.
  44. ^ Bergeson TR1, Pisoni DB; Davis, RA (2005). "Development of audiovisual comprehension skills in prelingually deaf children with cochlear implants". Ear & Hearing. 26 (2): 149–64. doi:x.1097/00003446-200504000-00004. PMC3432935. PMID 15809542.
  45. ^ "Advice support for deaf people". 2015-xi-24.
  46. ^ "Lipspeaker U.k. - Communication services for deaf & difficult of hearing people".
  47. ^ "Reading and dyslexia in deafened children | Nuffield Foundation".
  48. ^ Mayer, C. (2007). "What actually matters in the early on literacy evolution of deafened children". J Deafened Stud Deaf Educ. 12 (4): 411–31. doi:10.1093/deafed/enm020. PMID 17566067.
  49. ^ Mohammed, Tara; Campbell, Ruth; MacSweeney, Mairéad; Barry, Fiona; Coleman, Michael (2006). "Speechreading and its association with reading among deaf, hearing and dyslexic individuals". Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics. 20 (7–8): 621–630. doi:x.1080/02699200500266745. PMID 17056494. S2CID 34877573.
  50. ^ Kyle, F. Eastward.; Harris, M. (2010). "Predictors of reading evolution in deafened children: a 3-year longitudinal study" (PDF). J Exp Child Psychol. 107 (3): 229–243. doi:x.1016/j.jecp.2010.04.011. PMID 20570282.
  51. ^ Kyle, Fiona E.; Campbell, Ruth; Mohammed, Tara; Coleman, Mike; MacSweeney, Mairéad (2013). "Speechreading Development in Deafened and Hearing Children: Introducing the Test of Child Speechreading". Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Inquiry. 56 (2): 416–426. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2012/12-0039). PMC4920223. PMID 23275416.
  52. ^ Nicholls, GH; Ling, D (1982). "Cued Voice communication and the reception of spoken language". J Spoken communication Hear Res. 25 (two): 262–9. doi:10.1044/jshr.2502.262. PMID 7120965.
  53. ^ Leybaert, J; LaSasso, CJ (2010). "Cued speech communication for enhancing speech perception and get-go language evolution of children with cochlear implants". Trends in Amplification. 14 (ii): 96–112. doi:10.1177/1084713810375567. PMC4111351. PMID 20724357.
  54. ^ "Lipreading Alphabet: Round Vowels". Archived from the original on 2014-06-23. Retrieved 2014-06-23 .
  55. ^ "Campaigns and influencing".
  56. ^ "Home > Rachel-Walker > USC Dana and David Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences" (PDF).
  57. ^ "Rule-Based Visual Speech Synthesis". 1995. pp. 299–302.
  58. ^ Bosseler, Alexis; Massaro, Dominic W. (2003). "Development and Evaluation of a Computer-Animated Tutor for Vocabulary and Language Learning in Children with Autism". Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. 33 (6): 653–672. doi:ten.1023/B:JADD.0000006002.82367.4f. PMID 14714934. S2CID 17406145.
  59. ^ "Visual Voice communication Synthesis - UEA".
  60. ^ "Lip-reading computer can distinguish languages".
  61. ^ Archived at Ghostarchive and the Wayback Machine: "Video to Text: Lip reading and word spotting". YouTube.
  62. ^ Hickey, Shane (2016-04-24). "The innovators: Can computers be taught to lip-read?". The Guardian.
  63. ^ "Google's DeepMind AI can lip-read TV shows ameliorate than a pro".
  64. ^ Petajan, E.; Bischoff, B.; Bodoff, D.; Brooke, Northward. G. (1988). "An improved automatic lipreading system to enhance speech communication recognition". Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Man factors in calculating systems - CHI '88. pp. nineteen–25. doi:ten.1145/57167.57170. ISBN978-0201142372. S2CID 15211759.
  65. ^ http://world wide web.asel.udel.edu/icslp/cdrom/vol1/954/a954.pdf
  66. ^ http://world wide web.planetbiometrics.com-article-details-i-2250 [ permanent dead link ]
  67. ^ Calvert, GA; Bullmore, ET; Brammer, MJ; et al. (1997). "Activation of auditory cortex during silent lipreading". Scientific discipline. 276 (5312): 593–6. doi:10.1126/science.276.5312.593. PMID 9110978.
  68. ^ Bernstein, LE; Liebenthal, East (2014). "Neural pathways for visual speech perception". Front Neurosci. eight: 386. doi:ten.3389/fnins.2014.00386. PMC4248808. PMID 25520611.
  69. ^ Skipper, JI; van Wassenhove, V; Nusbaum, HC; Small-scale, SL (2007). "Hearing Lips and Seeing Voices: How Cortical Areas Supporting Spoken communication Production Mediate Audiovisual Speech Perception". Cognitive Cortex. 17 (x): 2387–2399. doi:ten.1093/cercor/bhl147. PMC2896890. PMID 17218482.
  70. ^ Campbell, R; MacSweeney, Yard; Surguladze, S; Calvert, G; McGuire, P; Suckling, J; Brammer, MJ; David, AS (2001). "Cortical substrates for the perception of face actions: an fMRI written report of the specificity of activation for seen speech and for meaningless lower-face acts (gurning)". Brain Res Cogn Brain Res. 12 (2): 233–43. doi:10.1016/s0926-6410(01)00054-4. PMID 11587893.
  71. ^ Swaminathan, Due south.; MacSweeney, M.; Boyles, R.; Waters, D.; Watkins, M. E.; Möttönen, R. (2013). "Motor excitability during visual perception of known and unknown spoken languages". Brain and Linguistic communication. 126 (1): 1–7. doi:10.1016/j.bandl.2013.03.002. PMC3682190. PMID 23644583.
  72. ^ Sams, M; et al. (1991). "Aulenko et al. 1991 Seeing Speech: visual information from lip movements modifies activeness in the human auditory cortex". Neuroscience Letters. 127 (1): 141–145. doi:ten.1016/0304-3940(91)90914-f. PMID 1881611. S2CID 9035639.
  73. ^ Van Wassenhove, V; Grant, KW; Poeppel, D (Jan 2005). "Visual speech speeds upwards the neural processing of auditory oral communication". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 102 (4): 1181–6. Bibcode:2005PNAS..102.1181V. doi:ten.1073/pnas.0408949102. PMC545853. PMID 15647358.
  74. ^ Hall DA1, Fussell C, Summerfield AQ. 2005 Reading fluent speech from talking faces: typical brain networks and individual differences.J. Cogn Neurosci. 17(6):939-53.
  75. ^ Bernstein, LE; Jiang, J; Pantazis, D; Lu, ZL; Joshi, A (2011). "Visual phonetic processing localized using spoken communication and nonspeech face gestures in video and point-light displays". Hum Encephalon Mapp. 32 (x): 1660–76. doi:10.1002/hbm.21139. PMC3120928. PMID 20853377.
  76. ^ Capek, CM; Macsweeney, Thousand; Woll, B; Waters, D; McGuire, PK; David, AS; Brammer, MJ; Campbell, R (2008). "Cortical circuits for silent speechreading in deafened and hearing people". Neuropsychologia. 46 (5): 1233–41. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2007.11.026. PMC2394569. PMID 18249420.

Bibliography [edit]

  • D.Stork and M.Henneke (Eds) (1996) Speechreading by Humans and machines: Models Systems and Applications. Nato ASI series F Computer and Systems sciences Vol 150. Springer, Berlin Germany
  • E.Bailly, P.Perrier and E.Vatikiotis-Bateson (Eds)(2012) Audiovisual Oral communication processing, Cambridge University press, Cambridge UK
  • Hearing By Eye (1987), B.Dodd and R.Campbell (Eds), Erlbaum Asstes, Hillsdale NJ, The states; Hearing by Eye Two, (1997) R.Campbell, B.Dodd and D.Burnham (Eds), Psychology Press, Hove UK
  • D. W. Massaro (1987, reprinted 2014) Voice communication perception by ear and by heart, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale NJ

Further reading [edit]

  • Dan Nosowitz (18 Feb 2020). "What Is the Hardest Language in the Earth to Lipread?". Atlas Obscura.
  • Laura Ringham (2012). "Why it's fourth dimension to recognise the value of lipreading and managing hearing loss support (Action on Hearing Loss, full written report)" (PDF).

External links [edit]

  • Scottish Sensory Centre 2005: workshop on lipreading [i]
  • Lipreading Classes in Scotland: the style forward. 2015 Study
  • AVISA; International Speech communication Communication Clan special interest group focussed on lip-reading and audiovisual voice communication
  • Speechreading for information gathering: a survey of scientific sources [two]

millswhatinat.blogspot.com

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lip_reading

0 Response to "Difference Between Lip Reading and Speech Reading"

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Iklan Atas Artikel

Iklan Tengah Artikel 1

Iklan Tengah Artikel 2

Iklan Bawah Artikel