A representation of abstract linguistic categories in the visual system underlies successful lipreading
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is considerable debate over how visual speech is processed in the absence of sound and whether neural activity supporting lipreading occurs in visual brain areas. Much of the ambiguity stems from a lack of behavioral grounding and neurophysiological analyses that cannot disentangle high-level linguistic and phonetic/energetic contributions from visual speech. To address this, we recorded EEG from human observers as they watched silent videos, half of which were novel and half of which were previously rehearsed with the accompanying audio. We modeled how the EEG responses to novel and rehearsed silent speech reflected the processing of low-level visual features (motion, lip movements) and a higher-level categorical representation of linguistic units, known as visemes. The ability of these visemes to account for the EEG - beyond the motion and lip movements - was significantly enhanced for rehearsed videos in a way that correlated with participants' trial-by-trial ability to lipread that speech. Source localization of viseme processing showed clear contributions from visual cortex, with no strong evidence for the involvement of auditory areas. We interpret this as support for the idea that the visual system produces its own specialized representation of speech that is (1) well-described by categorical linguistic features, (2) dissociable from lip movements, and (3) predictive of lipreading ability. We also suggest a reinterpretation of previous findings of auditory cortical activation during silent speech that is consistent with hierarchical accounts of visual and audiovisual speech 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.
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 | 0.000 |
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.
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".