Literature DB >> 22178454

Neural restoration of degraded audiovisual speech.

Antoine J Shahin1, Jess R Kerlin, Jyoti Bhat, Lee M Miller.   

Abstract

When speech is interrupted by noise, listeners often perceptually "fill-in" the degraded signal, giving an illusion of continuity and improving intelligibility. This phenomenon involves a neural process in which the auditory cortex (AC) response to onsets and offsets of acoustic interruptions is suppressed. Since meaningful visual cues behaviorally enhance this illusory filling-in, we hypothesized that during the illusion, lip movements congruent with acoustic speech should elicit a weaker AC response to interruptions relative to static (no movements) or incongruent visual speech. AC response to interruptions was measured as the power and inter-trial phase consistency of the auditory evoked theta band (4-8 Hz) activity of the electroencephalogram (EEG) and the N1 and P2 auditory evoked potentials (AEPs). A reduction in the N1 and P2 amplitudes and in theta phase-consistency reflected the perceptual illusion at the onset and/or offset of interruptions regardless of visual condition. These results suggest that the brain engages filling-in mechanisms throughout the interruption, which repairs degraded speech lasting up to ~250 ms following the onset of the degradation. Behaviorally, participants perceived speech continuity over longer interruptions for congruent compared to incongruent or static audiovisual streams. However, this specific behavioral profile was not mirrored in the neural markers of interest. We conclude that lip-reading enhances illusory perception of degraded speech not by altering the quality of the AC response, but by delaying it during degradations so that longer interruptions can be tolerated.
Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 22178454      PMCID: PMC3288427          DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.11.097

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Neuroimage        ISSN: 1053-8119            Impact factor:   6.556


  29 in total

1.  Improving permutation test power for group analysis of spatially filtered MEG data.

Authors:  Wilkin Chau; Anthony R McIntosh; Stephen E Robinson; Matthias Schulz; Christo Pantev
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2004-11       Impact factor: 6.556

2.  Dynamic aspects of the continuity illusion: perception of level and of the depth, rate, and phase of modulation.

Authors:  J Lyzenga; R P Carlyon; B C J Moore
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2005-08-26       Impact factor: 3.208

3.  Lexical activation produces potent phonemic percepts.

Authors:  A G Samuel
Journal:  Cogn Psychol       Date:  1997-03       Impact factor: 3.468

4.  On the variability of the McGurk effect: audiovisual integration depends on prestimulus brain states.

Authors:  Julian Keil; Nadia Müller; Niklas Ihssen; Nathan Weisz
Journal:  Cereb Cortex       Date:  2011-05-30       Impact factor: 5.357

5.  Auditory-visual speech recognition by hearing-impaired subjects: consonant recognition, sentence recognition, and auditory-visual integration.

Authors:  K W Grant; B E Walden; P F Seitz
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1998-05       Impact factor: 1.840

6.  Illusory continuity of interrupted speech: speech rate determines durational limits.

Authors:  J A Bashford; M D Meyers; B S Brubaker; R M Warren
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1988-11       Impact factor: 1.840

7.  Perceptual restoration of missing speech sounds.

Authors:  R M Warren
Journal:  Science       Date:  1970-01-23       Impact factor: 47.728

8.  Speech recognition with primarily temporal cues.

Authors:  R V Shannon; F G Zeng; V Kamath; J Wygonski; M Ekelid
Journal:  Science       Date:  1995-10-13       Impact factor: 47.728

9.  Phonemic restoration: insights from a new methodology.

Authors:  A G Samuel
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Gen       Date:  1981-12

10.  Stimulus specificity of phase-locked and non-phase-locked 40 Hz visual responses in human.

Authors:  C Tallon-Baudry; O Bertrand; C Delpuech; J Pernier
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  1996-07-01       Impact factor: 6.167

View more
  14 in total

1.  Neural time course of visually enhanced echo suppression.

Authors:  Christopher W Bishop; Sam London; Lee M Miller
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2012-07-11       Impact factor: 2.714

Review 2.  A roadmap for the study of conscious audition and its neural basis.

Authors:  Andrew R Dykstra; Peter A Cariani; Alexander Gutschalk
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2017-01-02       Impact factor: 6.237

3.  Cross-modal phonetic encoding facilitates the McGurk illusion and phonemic restoration.

Authors:  Noelle T Abbott; Antoine J Shahin
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2018-10-10       Impact factor: 2.714

4.  Processing Complex Sounds Passing through the Rostral Brainstem: The New Early Filter Model.

Authors:  John E Marsh; Tom A Campbell
Journal:  Front Neurosci       Date:  2016-05-10       Impact factor: 4.677

5.  Neural Mechanisms Underlying Cross-Modal Phonetic Encoding.

Authors:  Antoine J Shahin; Kristina C Backer; Lawrence D Rosenblum; Jess R Kerlin
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2017-12-20       Impact factor: 6.167

6.  Hearing an illusory vowel in noise: suppression of auditory cortical activity.

Authors:  Lars Riecke; Mieke Vanbussel; Lars Hausfeld; Deniz Başkent; Elia Formisano; Fabrizio Esposito
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2012-06-06       Impact factor: 6.167

7.  Children use visual speech to compensate for non-intact auditory speech.

Authors:  Susan Jerger; Markus F Damian; Nancy Tye-Murray; Hervé Abdi
Journal:  J Exp Child Psychol       Date:  2014-07-04

8.  Tolerance for audiovisual asynchrony is enhanced by the spectrotemporal fidelity of the speaker's mouth movements and speech.

Authors:  Antoine J Shahin; Stanley Shen; Jess R Kerlin
Journal:  Lang Cogn Neurosci       Date:  2017-02-06       Impact factor: 2.331

9.  Failing to get the gist of what's being said: background noise impairs higher-order cognitive processing.

Authors:  John E Marsh; Robert Ljung; Anatole Nöstl; Emma Threadgold; Tom A Campbell
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2015-05-21

10.  Visual context due to speech-reading suppresses the auditory response to acoustic interruptions in speech.

Authors:  Jyoti Bhat; Mark A Pitt; Antoine J Shahin
Journal:  Front Neurosci       Date:  2014-07-02       Impact factor: 4.677

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.