Talk:Lip reading

Lip reading is within the scope of WikiProject Disability. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.DisabilityWikipedia:WikiProject DisabilityTemplate:WikiProject DisabilityDisability articles

Deaf High‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject Deaf, the WikiProject which seeks to improve articles relating to all aspects of deaf-related and Deaf culture. For the Project guidelines, see the project page or talk page.DeafWikipedia:WikiProject DeafTemplate:WikiProject Deafdeaf articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Title

I'm quite sure that the appropriate term for this is now speechreading, not lipreading. Although certainly the vast majority of people who read this will search for lipreading, the term speechreading is now preferred by Deaf people.

Yes, I agree. Can we move this to Speech Reading and add a redirect from Lip Reading? NightMaj (talk) 19:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Automatic Lip Reading software

There is an article in the Daily Telegraph on 22nd December 2006 on Automatic Lip Reading software which has been used on old home movies of Adolf Hitler. --jmb 23:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image

A picture that shows someone (preferably not anyone notable) talking, such that you can clearly see that they are talking, would probably be good. Perhaps better still, a video (with caption showing what they are saying, perhaps), though videos are in short supply still. Richard001 (talk) 23:59, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Point of view

The article, as it currently stands, spends a lot of time emphasizing the difficulties inherent in speechreading, and not just in the section titled "difficulties". Although personally, I am very sympathetic to that view (a strong manualist myself), I can imagine, trying to look at the article through the eyes of an oralist, that it would come across as biased. Therefore, I'd suggest that some attention be given to providing a more neutral perspective WP:NPOV. Some of this will hopefully happen naturally as the article is expanded (as suggested by other editors) and other aspects of the subject are considered. AlbertBickford (talk) 09:32, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did some rearranging and rewording of the material to make some progress along this line. In the process of rearranging, I was able to concentrate the perspective emphasizing difficulties in just a couple places, rather than have it pervade the article. AlbertBickford (talk) 09:50, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Being a person who gradually lost all hearing by the time I was 36, I believe this article is unintentionally biased and thus should be clarified. I can see that it is written with the hearing population mainly in mind, but can the average reader discern that the main points preclude the non-hearing? In the "Deafness" section, which is probably what most people are interested in, could an audiologist volunteer some data plus statistics regarding the mean and average deviation of a population of severely to profoundly deaf people? For instance, my skills improve greatly when I go from single words to words in context. However, even contextual reading in the near perfect environment of an office of an audiologist demonstrated clearly to me that many errors of interpretation can creep in. Why not some data from a common aurally and visually noisy area? With a man that has a large mustache? How about with a man from West Texas, U.S.A.?
As the article stands, I believe a typical reader will think that speech-reading is magic!
Another point
How can the McGurk effect in this article be reconciled with the following research?
Rebecca J. Hirst, Jemaine E. Stacey, Lucy Cragg, Paula C. Stacey, Harriet A. Allen. The threshold for the McGurk effect in audio-visual noise decreases with development. Scientific Reports, 2018; 8 (1) DOI: 10.1038/s41598-018-30798-8

2600:1700:D010:B1C0:E958:D71E:2AEA:2121 (talk) 17:13, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

COI tag

@Theroadislong: I don't see any evidence of a conflict of interest in this article. Can you explain why you added this COI tag to the article? Jarble (talk) 03:42, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to remove it was two years ago now and involved User:RuthBCCampbell. Theroadislong (talk) 06:32, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I stumbled by, as I sometimes do, so I will remove the tag. I have something to add also. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 20:56, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

external link to lip speaker

Why does "professional lip-speaker" link to lipspeaking.co.uk specifically? Did someone add a link to them to this article as an ad? SheepTester (talk) 17:56, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Youtube videos

Latest comment: 200 years ago 92.32.63.133 (talk) 11:24, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

percentage of English speech that can be lip-read: source?

In the section "Phonemes and visemes", there is the following sentence: "Because there are about three times as many phonemes as visemes in English, it is often claimed that only 30% of speech can be lip read."

Do we have a source for people making that claim? BranAndSceolan (talk) 09:10, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]