First Trainer 2 Audio Download _TOP

We can simply wait to reveal interactive objects until the base slide narration completes. Do this by adjusting the timing of your interactive objects in the Timeline panel to arrive after the initial base audio ends.

Using this method, learners can open a layer at any time and any layers with this layer property enabled will ensure that the base slide pauses before layer audio begins. (Plus, if the learner returns to the base slide, the base slide narration will resume exactly where it left off!)

First Trainer 2 Audio Download Vk

Download File 🔥 https://shurll.com/2y2PJk 🔥

We did it! Select here to download our Storyline 360 file with these example builds, and go forth protecting interactions from overzealous cursors! Never again shall we deal with audio overlap.

Several recent works showed benefits of providing tactile (instead of visual) stimulation corresponding to low-frequencies of speech, to improve comprehension of distorted auditory speech in noise, including our own findings29,30,31. The idea of adding low-frequency tactile information to improve speech perception was first inspired by studies showing the benefit of complementing degraded speech signals with low-frequency auditory information (e.g. when using both a hearing aid and a cochlear implant), which carries pitch information and thus helps segregate auditory streams, including discriminating between speakers29,32,33.

Given these similarities between senses, we developed an in-house audio-to-touch (assistive) Sensory Substitution Device (SSD). SSDs convey information typically delivered by one sensory modality (e.g., vision) through a different sensory modality (audition, touch) using specific translation algorithms that can be learned by the user41,42,43,44. A classic example is a chair developed by Prof Bach-Y-Rita in 1969, that delivered a visual image to the back of its blind users, through patterns of vibration43.

In our first work with the audio-to-touch SSD we showed immediate and robust improvement of 6 dB on average in healthy subjects in speech-in-noise understanding (Speech Reception Threshold, SRT), when auditory speech was complemented with low-frequency tactile vibrations delivered on fingertips31. Importantly, in our previous experiment the improvement occurred without applying any training. This immediate effect was in contrast to a number of other works using other SSDs, including devices translating vision to sound or vision to touch, which required hours of training and/or prolonged use to yield benefits, probably due to the complexity of the applied algorithms43,45,46,47,48,49.

In the current study we sought to investigate whether we can replicate our previous findings of showing improved understanding of distorted speech in noise when the signal is accompanied with concurrent vibrations on fingertips. We also applied two types of training, unisensory auditory training and multisensory audio-tactile training, to see whether performance can improve even further. We also wanted to determine how the training will impact understanding of completely novel sentences in three test conditions, with or without concurrent matching (corresponding to the audio sentence) or non-matching vibrations delivered on fingertips with our SSD. To our knowledge, this is the first study exploring speech-to-touch sensory substitution that also applied a control training session and a control multisensory speech test condition29,30.

We show in our study that 70% participants before and 80% participants after both types of training achieved best scores in the test condition that combined an auditory input with a matching tactile input. We believe that this finding might exemplify the inverse effectiveness rule of multisensory integration which predicts that multisensory enhancement, i.e., the benefit of adding information through an additional sensory channel, is especially profound for low signal-to-noise conditions (but see the possible role of order in the Limitations of the study paragraph)52. To further support this claim, we also showed, using correlation analysis, that the benefit for speech perception (SRT values) of adding matching tactile vibrations on fingertips to the degraded auditory signal increased before training, the poorer the person performed in the audio only test condition. This effect was not maintained after training, when auditory speech recognition already much improved. Indeed, our experimental procedure was specifically designed to benefit from the inverse effectiveness principle5,67. In our study the auditory speech signal was new to the study participants, degraded (noise-vocoded), presented against background noise and in their non-native language. All these manipulations lead to a low signal to noise context, and deemed the auditory input less reliable, thus increasing the chance that a reliable tactile input will improve performance.

In our experiment we introduced a control audio-tactile condition with vibrations not corresponding to the auditory sentence, to test how it would affect speech-in noise understanding. Adding this control condition is novel and was not studied thus far in works dedicated to tactile speech processing29,30,69. In the literature, it has often been shown that while a congruent input from two sensory modalities can improve performance through cross-modal interactions23,24, non-matching or distracting information in one sensory modality can impair performance5,70,77,78,79. Indeed, we show here that after training both groups of participants had poorest scores in the audio-tactile non-matching test condition and for both groups the improvement in this speech test was least significant. At the same time, however, the scores before training were almost the same for both conditions combining an auditory and a tactile input, i.e. for both congruent and non-congruent pairs. The revealed mean SRT values for both of them were also significantly better than those reported for the audio only test condition. This indicates a possible non-specific multisensory effect before training, i.e., during the period of familiarization with the audio-tactile study set-up. The non-specific tactile input might possibly be helping the participants to keep their attention on the task. Although the vibrations in the control condition were not congruent with the speech signal, they still resembled the target sentence more than the background noise and thus helped the participants focus on the target input. The data suggests that within a short time participants learned to ignore the non-matching vibration, which led to the poorest scores in this test condition after training. Alternatively, and as already suggested above, participation in training may have removed some level of difficulty of sound perception, which made it easier for the participants to properly use the speech information present in vibrotactile stimulation. Therefore, we believe that the results of the post-training test session might actually be more representative of the benefit of adding speech-related information through touch for speech perception [see Ernst and colleagues for a similar effect of training congruent vs non-congruent visuo-tactile pairs of stimuli76]. In addition, the fact that one group trained with congruent tactile inputs seems to have resulted in their lesser improvement in the audio-tactile nonmatching condition as well as poorer audio-tactile nonmatching scores after training (as compared to the group trained with unisensory auditory inputs). The reason might be related to the fact that the ATnm test condition might have actually been the hardest in terms of the required cognitive resources, including selective attention, and inhibition from distraction79. In order to elucidate the effects of the multisensory congruency effect further, research involving controlled selective attention of the participants is needed. One can speculate that a training session of focusing attention on the inputs from a single sensory modality might both reduce the distracting effects of the non-matching tactile input (when focused on the auditory aspect) and improve the benefit of adding matching vibrations further (when focused on the matching tactile input).

The reason why we focused on non-native English speakers in our study was to further benefit from the inverse effectiveness rule of multisensory integration requiring low SNR between senses. At the same time, we made sure that the participants were fluent in English and felt comfortable with the experimental setting. Non-native listeners have been shown to perform much poorer in speech-in-noise tasks than native English speakers. The reduced performance has been attributed to a number of factors, such as language proficiency, degree of exposure to the foreign language and age of language acquisition10,27,55,56,57. In the current experiment we used the HINT sentence database consisting of sentences with semantic content which are to some extent predictable60. Therefore, we assumed (and actually witnessed during the study) that the participants would apply their high-level knowledge to improve perception and predict/guess the upcoming language information. We performed several additional analyses to test, whether the English language background of the participants would translate to their speech scores before training. Indeed, we showed that a longer time of studying English, more exposure to it in both professional and leisurely contexts, as well as better self-rated skills in English were related to better initial scores in speech comprehension through audition (A1). More years of studying and higher everyday exposure to English translated also to better scores in the audio-tactile nonmatching test condition (ATnm1). As mentioned before, this effect might be related to the fact that the noncongruent multisensory task requires additional cognitive resources, which might have been trained in the foreign-language contexts throughout life. In addition, we found that the participants that started learning English at an earlier age ( ff782bc1db