↓ Skip to main content

Speechreading in Deaf Adults with Cochlear Implants: Evidence for Perceptual Compensation

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
15 X users
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
69 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Speechreading in Deaf Adults with Cochlear Implants: Evidence for Perceptual Compensation
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, February 2017
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00106
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hannah Pimperton, Amelia Ralph-Lewis, Mairéad MacSweeney

Abstract

Previous research has provided evidence for a speechreading advantage in congenitally deaf adults compared to hearing adults. A 'perceptual compensation' account of this finding proposes that prolonged early onset deafness leads to a greater reliance on visual, as opposed to auditory, information when perceiving speech which in turn results in superior visual speech perception skills in deaf adults. In the current study we tested whether previous demonstrations of a speechreading advantage for profoundly congenitally deaf adults with hearing aids, or no amplificiation, were also apparent in adults with the same deafness profile but who have experienced greater access to the auditory elements of speech via a cochlear implant (CI). We also tested the prediction that, in line with the perceptual compensation account, receiving a CI at a later age is associated with superior speechreading skills due to later implanted individuals having experienced greater dependence on visual speech information. We designed a speechreading task in which participants viewed silent videos of 123 single words spoken by a model and were required to indicate which word they thought had been said via a free text response. We compared congenitally deaf adults who had received CIs in childhood or adolescence (N = 15) with a comparison group of hearing adults (N = 15) matched on age and education level. The adults with CI showed significantly better scores on the speechreading task than the hearing comparison group. Furthermore, within the group of adults with CI, there was a significant positive correlation between age at implantation and speechreading performance; earlier implantation was associated with lower speechreading scores. These results are both consistent with the hypothesis of perceptual compensation in the domain of speech perception, indicating that more prolonged dependence on visual speech information in speech perception may lead to improvements in the perception of visual speech. In addition our study provides metrics of the 'speechreadability' of 123 words produced in British English: one derived from hearing adults (N = 61) and one from deaf adults with CI (N = 15). Evidence for the validity of these 'speechreadability' metrics come from correlations with visual lexical competition data.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 69 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 69 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 17 25%
Researcher 11 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 10%
Student > Bachelor 7 10%
Lecturer 3 4%
Other 9 13%
Unknown 15 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 10 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 12%
Neuroscience 8 12%
Social Sciences 5 7%
Linguistics 4 6%
Other 13 19%
Unknown 21 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 February 2024.
All research outputs
#2,788,973
of 26,423,535 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#5,549
of 35,361 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#54,288
of 430,890 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#113
of 465 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,423,535 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 35,361 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 430,890 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 465 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.