MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Neurophysiological Indices of Audiovisual Speech Processing Reveal a Hierarchy of Multisensory Integration Effects

2021· article· en· W3146316730 on OpenAlexaff
Aisling E. O’Sullivan, Michael J. Crosse, Giovanni M. Di Liberto, Alain de Cheveigné, Edmund C. Lalor

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neuroscience · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMultisensory perception and integration
Canadian institutionsTrinity College
FundersNational Institute on Deafness and Other Communication DisordersNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsMultisensory integrationSpeech perceptionSpeech recognitionNeurocomputational speech processingSpeech processingActive listeningPsychologyPerceptionMotor theory of speech perceptionComputer scienceCognitive psychologyCommunicationSensory system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Seeing a speaker9s face benefits speech comprehension, especially in challenging listening conditions. This perceptual benefit is thought to stem from the neural integration of visual and auditory speech at multiple stages of processing, whereby movement of a speaker9s face provides temporal cues to auditory cortex, and articulatory information from the speaker9s mouth can aid recognizing specific linguistic units (e.g., phonemes, syllables). However, it remains unclear how the integration of these cues varies as a function of listening conditions. Here, we sought to provide insight on these questions by examining EEG responses in humans (males and females) to natural audiovisual (AV), audio, and visual speech in quiet and in noise. We represented our speech stimuli in terms of their spectrograms and their phonetic features and then quantified the strength of the encoding of those features in the EEG using canonical correlation analysis (CCA). The encoding of both spectrotemporal and phonetic features was shown to be more robust in AV speech responses than what would have been expected from the summation of the audio and visual speech responses, suggesting that multisensory integration occurs at both spectrotemporal and phonetic stages of speech processing. We also found evidence to suggest that the integration effects may change with listening conditions; however, this was an exploratory analysis and future work will be required to examine this effect using a within-subject design. These findings demonstrate that integration of audio and visual speech occurs at multiple stages along the speech processing hierarchy. <b>SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT</b> During conversation, visual cues impact our perception of speech. Integration of auditory and visual speech is thought to occur at multiple stages of speech processing and vary flexibly depending on the listening conditions. Here, we examine audiovisual (AV) integration at two stages of speech processing using the speech spectrogram and a phonetic representation, and test how AV integration adapts to degraded listening conditions. We find significant integration at both of these stages regardless of listening conditions. These findings reveal neural indices of multisensory interactions at different stages of processing and provide support for the multistage integration framework.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0070.001

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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.314 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations55
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of NeuroscienceSame topicMultisensory perception and integrationFrench-language works237,207