A virtual speaker in noisy classroom conditions: supporting or disrupting children’s listening comprehension?

References

• Lyberg-Åhlander V, Brännström KJ, Sahlén BS. On the interaction of speakers’ voice quality, ambient noise and task complexity with children’s listening comprehension and cognition. Front Psychol. 2015;6:871.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bradley JS, Sato H. The intelligibility of speech in elementary school classrooms. J Acoust Soc Am. 2008;123:2078–2086.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shield BM, Dockrell JE. The effects of environmental and classroom noise on the academic attainments of primary school children. J Acoust Soc Am. 2008;123:133–144.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kalikow DN, Stevens KN, Elliott LL. Development of a test of speech intelligibility in noise using sentence materials with controlled word predictability. J Acoust Soc Am. 1977;61:1337–1351.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hagerman B. Sentences for testing speech intelligibility in noise. Scand Audiol. 1982;11:79–87.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Neuman AC, Wroblewski M, Hajicek J, et al. Combined effects of noise and reverberation on speech recognition performance of normal-hearing children and adults. Ear Hear. 2010;31:336–344.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sumby WH, Pollack I. Visual contribution to speech intelligibility in noise. J Acoust Soc Am. 1954;26:212–215.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McGurk H, MacDonald J. Hearing lips and seeing voices. Nature. 1976;264:746–748.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Munhall KG, Jones JA, Callan DE, et al. Visual prosody and speech intelligibility head movement improves auditory speech perception. Psychol Sci. 2004;15:133–137.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cassell J, Pelachaud C, Badler NI, et al. Embodied conversational agents. Cambridge (MA): MIT press; 2000.
   Google Scholar
• Johnson WL, Rickel JW, Lester JC. Animated pedagogical agents: face-to-face interaction in interactive learning environments. Int J Artificial Intelligence Educ. 2000;11:47–78.
   Google Scholar
• Blascovich J, Loomis J, Beall AC, et al. Immersive virtual environment technology as a methodological tool for social psychology. Psychol Inq. 2002;13:103–124.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lingonblad M, Londos L, Nilsson A, et al. Virtual Blindness-A Choice Blindness Experiment with a Virtual Experimenter. In International Conference on Intelligent Virtual Agents. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2015. p. 442–451.
   Google Scholar
• Agelfors E, Beskow J, Dahlquist M, et al. Synthetic faces as a lipreading support. In: ICSLP; 1998.
   Google Scholar
• Möttönen R, Olivés JL, Kulju J, et al. Parameterized visual speech synthesis and its evaluation. In: 10th European IEEE Signal Processing Conference; 2000 Sep 4; Tampere, Finland. p. 1–4.
   Google Scholar
• Ross LA, Saint-Amour D, Leavitt VM, et al. Do you see what I am saying? Exploring visual enhancement of speech comprehension in noisy environments. Cerebral Cortex. 2007;17:1147–1153.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grant KW, Seitz PF. The use of visible speech cues for improving auditory detection of spoken sentences. J Acoust Soc Am. 2000;108:1197–1208.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ljung R, Sörqvist P, Kjellberg A, et al. Poor listening conditions impair memory for intelligible lectures: implications for acoustic classroom standards. Building Acoust. 2009;16:257–265.
   Google Scholar
• Valente DL, Plevinsky HM, Franco JM, et al. Experimental investigation of the effects of the acoustical conditions in a simulated classroom on speech recognition and learning in children. J Acoust Soc Am. 2012;131:232–246.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klatte M, Lachmann T, Meis M. Effects of noise and reverberation on speech perception and listening comprehension of children and adults in a classroom-like setting. Noise Health. 2010;12:270.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schafer EC, Bryant D, Sanders K, et al. Listening comprehension in background noise in children with normal hearing. J Educ Audiol. 2013;19:58–64
   Google Scholar
• Bowers L, Huisingh R, LoGiudice C. The listening comprehension test 2. East Moline: LinguiSystems Inc; 2006.
   Google Scholar
• Mattys SL, Davis MH, Bradlow AR, et al. Speech recognition in adverse conditions: a review. Lang Cogn Process. 2012;27:953–978.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sörqvist P. The role of working memory capacity in auditory distraction: a review. Noise Health. 2010;12:217.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lyberg-Åhlander V, Haake M, Brännström J, et al. Does the speaker’s voice quality influence children’s performance on a language comprehension test? Int J Speech Lang Pathol. 2015;17:63–73.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koelewijn T, Zekveld AA, Festen JM, et al. Pupil dilation uncovers extra listening effort in the presence of a single-talker masker. Ear Hear. 2012;33:291–300.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mackersie CL, Cones H. Subjective and psychophysiological indexes of listening effort in a competing-talker task. J Am Acad Audiol. 2011;22:113–122.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jansen S, Chaparro A, Downs D, et al. Visual and cognitive predictors of visual enhancement in noisy listening conditions. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting; Los Angeles (CA): SAGE Publications; 2013 September. Vol. 57. p. 1199–1203.
   Google Scholar
• Mishra S, Lunner T, Stenfelt S, et al. Visual information can hinder working memory processing of speech. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2013;56:1120–1132.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Picou EM, Ricketts TA, Hornsby BW. Visual cues and listening effort: Individual variability. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2011;54:1416–1430.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lane H, Tranel B. The Lombard sign and the role of hearing in speech. J Speech Hear Res. 1971;14:677–709.
   Google Scholar
• Åhlander VL, Rydell R, Löfqvist A. Speaker’s comfort in teaching environments: voice problems in Swedish teaching staff. J Voice. 2011;25:430–440.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• von Lochow H, Lyberg-Åhlander V, Sahlén B, et al. The effect of voice quality and competing speakers in a passage comprehension task: perceived effort in relation to cognitive functioning and performance in children with normal hearing. Logop Phoniatr Vocol. 2018;43:32–41.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Imhof M, Välikoski TR, Laukkanen AM, et al. Cognition and interpersonal communication: The effect of voice quality on information processing and person perception. Studies Commun Sci. 2014;14:37–44.
   Google Scholar
• Morton V, Watson DR. The impact of impaired vocal quality on children’s ability to process spoken language. Logop Phoniatr Vocol. 2001;26:17–25.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Semel EM, Wiig EH, Secord W. CELF 4: clinical evaluation of language Fundamentals. Pearson: Psychological Corporation; 2006. Available from: http://www.pearsonassessment.se/celf-4/.
   Google Scholar
• Whitling S, Rydell R, Åhlander VL. Design of a clinical vocal loading test with long-time measurement of voice. J Voice. 2015;29:261–e13.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gift AG. Visual analogue scales: measurement of subjective phenomena. Nurs Res. 1989;38:286–287.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wechsler D. WISCIV Integrated. Wechsler intelligence scale for children – Fourth Edition – integrated [Manual]. London (UK): Pearson Assessment; 2004.
   Google Scholar
• R Core Team. A language and environment for statistical computing. 2016. Available from: https://www.R-project.org/.
   Google Scholar
• Kuznetsova A, Brockhoff PB, Christensen RH. Package ‘lmerTest’. R package version. 2015:2-0. [cited 2017 May 15]. Available from: https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/lmerTest/index.html.
   Google Scholar
• Nakagawa S, Schielzeth H. A general and simple method for obtaining R2 from generalized linear mixed‐effects models. Methods Ecol Evol. 2013;4:133–142.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bartoń K. MuMIn: multi-model inference. R package version. 2013. [cited 2017 May 15]. Available from: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=MuMIn.
   Google Scholar
• Reisberg D, Mclean J, Goldfield A. Easy to hear but hard to understand: a lip-reading advantage with intact auditory stimuli. In: Dodd B, Campbell R, editors. Hearing by eye: the psychology of lip-reading. Hillsdale (NJ): Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc. p. 97–113.
   Google Scholar
• Sekiyama K, Tohkura YI. McGurk effect in non‐English listeners: few visual effects for Japanese subjects hearing Japanese syllables of high auditory intelligibility. J Acoust Soc Am. 1991;90:1797–1805.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buchan JN, Munhall KG. The effect of a concurrent working memory task and temporal offsets on the integration of auditory and visual speech information. Seeing Perceiving. 2012;25:87–106.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Andersen TS, Tiippana K, Laarni J, et al. The role of visual spatial attention in audiovisual speech perception. Speech Commun. 2009;51:184–193.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jerger S, Damian MF, Spence MJ, et al. Developmental shifts in children’s sensitivity to visual speech: a new multimodal picture–word task. J Exp Child Psychol. 2009;102:40–59.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dockrell JE, Shield B. Children’s perceptions of their acoustic environment at school and at home. J Acoust Soc Am. 2004;115:2964–2973.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Seyama JI, Nagayama RS. The uncanny valley: effect of realism on the impression of artificial human faces. Presence. 2007;16:337–351.
   Google Scholar
• Borring O. Har barn på lågstadiet svårare att förstå en virtuell talare jämfört med en videoinspelad talare i bullrig miljö? [Master’s Thesis]. Lund (Sweden): Lund Logopedics, Phoniatrics and Audiology; 2016; [cited 2017 May 15]. Available from: https://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/search/publication/8889505.
   Google Scholar
• Lavie N. Distracted and confused?: selective attention under load. Trends Cogn Sci. 2005;9:75–82.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parks NA, Hilimire MR, Corballis PM. Steady-state signatures of visual perceptual load, multimodal distractor filtering, and neural competition. J Cogn Neurosci. 2011;23:1113–1124.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lyberg-Åhlander V, Holm L, Kastberg T, et al. Are children with stronger cognitive capacity more or less disturbed by classroom noise and dysphonic teachers? Int J Speech Lang Pathol. 2015;17:577–588.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar