In real life, most of the speech we are exposed to is accompanied by information other than just the acoustic signal. We usually know things about the physical, social, and language context in which a sentence is being uttered, such as who is uttering it. At the very least, we can usually see the person who is talking (unless, of course, we are talking on the phone or in two different rooms). Some work of Dr. Eric Vatikiotis-Bateson has investigated how much information people can extract from the visual signal under different conditions. In Munhall et al. (2004), he and his colleagues manipulated videos of someone talking to be clearer or less clear by setting different filter conditions -- you can see example pictures from each filter condition in Figure 1 in Munhall et al. (2004, p.577). The details of each filter are not relevant for the current purpose. In each video, the talker in the video said a series of sentences in English. The audio of these sentences was partially masked by noise to make the task harder and make reliance on visual information more important. Munhall et al. had native English speakers watch each type of video and listen to the sentences; the English speakers then had to verbally repeat as much of each sentence as they could, and the researchers calculated the percentage of key words correctly identified in the sentences. In one of the tasks they report, they also manipulated the distance from the video that the English speakers were seated: 114 cm, 228 cm, or 342 cm. The percentage of words correctly identified are given in the following table (note that these are approximations of the percent correct from Figure 3 of the original paper, which provides only a graphical summary and not a numerical one). Filter Condition B C D E 114cm 33.0 48.0 52.0 44.0 47.5 Viewing distance 228cm 33.5 47.0 57.0 46.0 47.5 342cm | 33.0 50.0 57.0 42.5 40.0 (a) What type of study is described above? O A. An experiment. O B. An observational study. O C. A sample survey. (b) What were the experimental units in this study? A. The percentage of key words correctly identified in the sentences. OB. The English speakers who watched and listened to the videos. O C. The filters. OD. The talkers in the videos. O E. The distances the English speakers sat from the video. (c) What was the response? O A. The percentage of key words correctly identified in the sentences. OB. The filters. O C. The talkers in the videos. OD. The distances the English speakers sat from the video. O E. The English speakers who watched and listened to the videos. (d) What is/are the factors in the study? O A. The talkers in the videos. O B. How well the English speakers understood the words in the videos. O C. The number of different filters. O D. Filter condition and viewing distance. O E. The English speakers who watched and listened to the videos. (e) How many treatments were there? OA. 5 OB. 8 OC. 3 OD. 2 OE. 15(f) Based on just the numbers given above, which of the following is a reasonable conclusions from the study? O A. No factor investigated appears to impact the response variable. O B. Filter condition seems to have more of an impact than viewing distance. O C. We should never listen to anyone we cannot see clearly. O D. Verbally repeating English sentences is very easy for English speakers. E. Filter condition seems to have less of an impact than viewing distance