Literature DB >> 29891730

Neural Prediction Errors Distinguish Perception and Misperception of Speech.

Helen Blank1,2, Marlene Spangenberg3,4, Matthew H Davis3.   

Abstract

Humans use prior expectations to improve perception, especially of sensory signals that are degraded or ambiguous. However, if sensory input deviates from prior expectations, then correct perception depends on adjusting or rejecting prior expectations. Failure to adjust or reject the prior leads to perceptual illusions, especially if there is partial overlap (and thus partial mismatch) between expectations and input. With speech, "slips of the ear" occur when expectations lead to misperception. For instance, an entomologist might be more susceptible to hear "The ants are my friends" for "The answer, my friend" (in the Bob Dylan song Blowing in the Wind). Here, we contrast two mechanisms by which prior expectations may lead to misperception of degraded speech. First, clear representations of the common sounds in the prior and input (i.e., expected sounds) may lead to incorrect confirmation of the prior. Second, insufficient representations of sounds that deviate between prior and input (i.e., prediction errors) could lead to deception. We used crossmodal predictions from written words that partially match degraded speech to compare neural responses when male and female human listeners were deceived into accepting the prior or correctly reject it. Combined behavioral and multivariate representational similarity analysis of fMRI data show that veridical perception of degraded speech is signaled by representations of prediction error in the left superior temporal sulcus. Instead of using top-down processes to support perception of expected sensory input, our findings suggest that the strength of neural prediction error representations distinguishes correct perception and misperception.SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT Misperceiving spoken words is an everyday experience, with outcomes that range from shared amusement to serious miscommunication. For hearing-impaired individuals, frequent misperception can lead to social withdrawal and isolation, with severe consequences for wellbeing. In this work, we specify the neural mechanisms by which prior expectations, which are so often helpful for perception, can lead to misperception of degraded sensory signals. Most descriptive theories of illusory perception explain misperception as arising from a clear sensory representation of features or sounds that are in common between prior expectations and sensory input. Our work instead provides support for a complementary proposal: that misperception occurs when there is an insufficient sensory representations of the deviation between expectations and sensory signals.
Copyright © 2018 the authors 0270-6474/18/386076-14$15.00/0.

Entities:  

Keywords:  fMRI; misperception; predictive coding; prior expectations; representational similarity analysis; speech perception

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29891730      PMCID: PMC6596154          DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3258-17.2018

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Neurosci        ISSN: 0270-6474            Impact factor:   6.167


  45 in total

1.  Automated anatomical labeling of activations in SPM using a macroscopic anatomical parcellation of the MNI MRI single-subject brain.

Authors:  N Tzourio-Mazoyer; B Landeau; D Papathanassiou; F Crivello; O Etard; N Delcroix; B Mazoyer; M Joliot
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2002-01       Impact factor: 6.556

Review 2.  Neuroimaging studies of priming.

Authors:  R N A Henson
Journal:  Prog Neurobiol       Date:  2003-05       Impact factor: 11.685

3.  Auditory cortex encodes the perceptual interpretation of ambiguous sound.

Authors:  Niclas Kilian-Hütten; Giancarlo Valente; Jean Vroomen; Elia Formisano
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2011-02-02       Impact factor: 6.167

4.  Less is more: expectation sharpens representations in the primary visual cortex.

Authors:  Peter Kok; Janneke F M Jehee; Floris P de Lange
Journal:  Neuron       Date:  2012-07-26       Impact factor: 17.173

5.  The TRACE model of speech perception.

Authors:  J L McClelland; J L Elman
Journal:  Cogn Psychol       Date:  1986-01       Impact factor: 3.468

6.  The impact of hearing loss on quality of life in older adults.

Authors:  Dayna S Dalton; Karen J Cruickshanks; Barbara E K Klein; Ronald Klein; Terry L Wiley; David M Nondahl
Journal:  Gerontologist       Date:  2003-10

7.  Distinct processing of ambiguous speech in people with non-clinical auditory verbal hallucinations.

Authors:  Ben Alderson-Day; César F Lima; Samuel Evans; Saloni Krishnan; Pradheep Shanmugalingam; Charles Fernyhough; Sophie K Scott
Journal:  Brain       Date:  2017-09-01       Impact factor: 13.501

8.  Automatic analysis (aa): efficient neuroimaging workflows and parallel processing using Matlab and XML.

Authors:  Rhodri Cusack; Alejandro Vicente-Grabovetsky; Daniel J Mitchell; Conor J Wild; Tibor Auer; Annika C Linke; Jonathan E Peelle
Journal:  Front Neuroinform       Date:  2015-01-15       Impact factor: 4.081

9.  Representational similarity analysis - connecting the branches of systems neuroscience.

Authors:  Nikolaus Kriegeskorte; Marieke Mur; Peter Bandettini
Journal:  Front Syst Neurosci       Date:  2008-11-24

10.  Lexical influences on auditory streaming.

Authors:  Alexander J Billig; Matthew H Davis; John M Deeks; Jolijn Monstrey; Robert P Carlyon
Journal:  Curr Biol       Date:  2013-07-25       Impact factor: 10.834

View more
  7 in total

1.  The Effect of Right Temporal Lobe Gliomas on Left and Right Hemisphere Neural Processing During Speech Perception and Production Tasks.

Authors:  Adam Kenji Yamamoto; Ana Sanjuán; Rebecca Pope; Oiwi Parker Jones; Thomas M H Hope; Susan Prejawa; Marion Oberhuber; Laura Mancini; Justyna O Ekert; Andrea Garjardo-Vidal; Megan Creasey; Tarek A Yousry; David W Green; Cathy J Price
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2022-05-16       Impact factor: 3.473

2.  Surmising synchrony of sound and sight: Factors explaining variance of audiovisual integration in hurdling, tap dancing and drumming.

Authors:  Nina Heins; Jennifer Pomp; Daniel S Kluger; Stefan Vinbrüx; Ima Trempler; Axel Kohler; Katja Kornysheva; Karen Zentgraf; Markus Raab; Ricarda I Schubotz
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2021-07-22       Impact factor: 3.240

3.  Rapid computations of spectrotemporal prediction error support perception of degraded speech.

Authors:  Ediz Sohoglu; Matthew H Davis
Journal:  Elife       Date:  2020-11-04       Impact factor: 8.140

Review 4.  The Encoding of Speech Sounds in the Superior Temporal Gyrus.

Authors:  Han Gyol Yi; Matthew K Leonard; Edward F Chang
Journal:  Neuron       Date:  2019-06-19       Impact factor: 17.173

Review 5.  Aging Brain and Hearing: A Mini-Review.

Authors:  Yasue Uchida; Yukiko Nishita; Rei Otsuka; Saiko Sugiura; Michihiko Sone; Tatsuya Yamasoba; Takashi Kato; Kaori Iwata; Akinori Nakamura
Journal:  Front Aging Neurosci       Date:  2022-01-13       Impact factor: 5.750

6.  Functional imaging analyses reveal prototype and exemplar representations in a perceptual single-category task.

Authors:  Helen Blank; Janine Bayer
Journal:  Commun Biol       Date:  2022-09-01

7.  Predictive Neural Computations Support Spoken Word Recognition: Evidence from MEG and Competitor Priming.

Authors:  Yingcan Carol Wang; Ediz Sohoglu; Rebecca A Gilbert; Richard N Henson; Matthew H Davis
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2021-07-01       Impact factor: 6.167

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.