Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Mirrors and toothaches: commonplace manipulations of non-auditory feedback availability change perceived speech intelligibility
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Mirrors and toothaches: commonplace manipulations of non-auditory feedback availability change perceived speech intelligibility
Do you wish to request the book?
Mirrors and toothaches: commonplace manipulations of non-auditory feedback availability change perceived speech intelligibility
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Mirrors and toothaches: commonplace manipulations of non-auditory feedback availability change perceived speech intelligibility
2024
Overview
This paper investigates the impact of two non-technical speech feedback perturbations outside the auditory modality: topical application of commercially-available benzocaine to reduce somatosensory feedback from speakers’ lips and tongue tip, and the presence of a mirror to provide fully-detailed visual self-feedback. In experiment 1, speakers were recorded under normal quiet conditions (i.e., baseline), then again with benzocaine application plus auditory degradation, and finally with the addition of mirror feedback. Speech produced under normal and both feedback-altered conditions was assessed via naïve listeners’ intelligibility discrimination judgments. Listeners judged speech produced under bisensory degradation to be less intelligible than speech from the un-degraded baseline, and with a greater degree of difference than previously observed with auditory-only degradation. The introduction of mirror feedback, however, did not result in relative improvements in intelligibility. Experiment 2, therefore, assessed the effect of a mirror on speech intelligibility in isolation with no other sensory feedback manipulations. Speech was recorded at baseline and then again in front of a mirror, and relative intelligibility was discriminated by naïve listeners. Speech produced with mirror feedback was judged as less intelligible than baseline tokens, indicating a negative impact of visual self-feedback in the absence of other sensory manipulations. The results of both experiments demonstrate that relatively accessible manipulations of non-auditory sensory feedback can produce speech-relevant effects, and that those effects are perceptible to naïve listeners.
Publisher
Frontiers Media S.A
