MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Crossmodal Phase Reset and Evoked Responses Provide Complementary Mechanisms for the Influence of Visual Speech in Auditory Cortex

2020· article· en· W3092182997 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neuroscience · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMultisensory perception and integration
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health Network
FundersNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeNational Institute on Deafness and Other Communication DisordersSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung
KeywordsCrossmodalNeuroscienceAuditory cortexMultisensory integrationStimulus (psychology)PsychologySensory systemPerceptionMagnetoencephalographyVisual perceptionElectroencephalographyCognitive psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Natural conversation is multisensory: when we can see the speaker's face, visual speech cues improve our comprehension. The neuronal mechanisms underlying this phenomenon remain unclear. The two main alternatives are visually mediated phase modulation of neuronal oscillations (excitability fluctuations) in auditory neurons and visual input-evoked responses in auditory neurons. Investigating this question using naturalistic audiovisual speech with intracranial recordings in humans of both sexes, we find evidence for both mechanisms. Remarkably, auditory cortical neurons track the temporal dynamics of purely visual speech using the phase of their slow oscillations and phase-related modulations in broadband high-frequency activity. Consistent with known perceptual enhancement effects, the visual phase reset amplifies the cortical representation of concomitant auditory speech. In contrast to this, and in line with earlier reports, visual input reduces the amplitude of evoked responses to concomitant auditory input. We interpret the combination of improved phase tracking and reduced response amplitude as evidence for more efficient and reliable stimulus processing in the presence of congruent auditory and visual speech inputs. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT Watching the speaker can facilitate our understanding of what is being said. The mechanisms responsible for this influence of visual cues on the processing of speech remain incompletely understood. We studied these mechanisms by recording the electrical activity of the human brain through electrodes implanted surgically inside the brain. We found that visual inputs can operate by directly activating auditory cortical areas, and also indirectly by modulating the strength of cortical responses to auditory input. Our results help to understand the mechanisms by which the brain merges auditory and visual speech into a unitary perception.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.983
Threshold uncertainty score0.207

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.108
GPT teacher head0.438
Teacher spread0.331 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it