The integration of continuous audio and visual speech in a cocktail-party environment depends on attention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In noisy environments, our ability to understand speech benefits greatly from seeing the speaker's face. This is attributed to the brain's ability to integrate audio and visual information, a process known as multisensory integration. In addition, selective attention plays an enormous role in what we understand, the so-called cocktail-party phenomenon. But how attention and multisensory integration interact remains incompletely understood, particularly in the case of natural, continuous speech. Here, we addressed this issue by analyzing EEG data recorded from participants who undertook a multisensory cocktail-party task using natural speech. To assess multisensory integration, we modeled the EEG responses to the speech in two ways. The first assumed that audiovisual speech processing is simply a linear combination of audio speech processing and visual speech processing (i.e., an A + V model), while the second allows for the possibility of audiovisual interactions (i.e., an AV model). Applying these models to the data revealed that EEG responses to attended audiovisual speech were better explained by an AV model, providing evidence for multisensory integration. In contrast, unattended audiovisual speech responses were best captured using an A + V model, suggesting that multisensory integration is suppressed for unattended speech. Follow up analyses revealed some limited evidence for early multisensory integration of unattended AV speech, with no integration occurring at later levels of processing. We take these findings as evidence that the integration of natural audio and visual speech occurs at multiple levels of processing in the brain, each of which can be differentially affected by attention.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".