Literature DB >> 31370660

Acoustic noise and vision differentially warp the auditory categorization of speech.

Gavin M Bidelman1, Lauren Sigley1, Gwyneth A Lewis1.   

Abstract

Speech perception requires grouping acoustic information into meaningful linguistic-phonetic units via categorical perception (CP). Beyond shrinking observers' perceptual space, CP might aid degraded speech perception if categories are more resistant to noise than surface acoustic features. Combining audiovisual (AV) cues also enhances speech recognition, particularly in noisy environments. This study investigated the degree to which visual cues from a talker (i.e., mouth movements) aid speech categorization amidst noise interference by measuring participants' identification of clear and noisy speech (0 dB signal-to-noise ratio) presented in auditory-only or combined AV modalities (i.e., A, A+noise, AV, AV+noise conditions). Auditory noise expectedly weakened (i.e., shallower identification slopes) and slowed speech categorization. Interestingly, additional viseme cues largely counteracted noise-related decrements in performance and stabilized classification speeds in both clear and noise conditions suggesting more precise acoustic-phonetic representations with multisensory information. Results are parsimoniously described under a signal detection theory framework and by a reduction (visual cues) and increase (noise) in the precision of perceptual object representation, which were not due to lapses of attention or guessing. Collectively, findings show that (i) mapping sounds to categories aids speech perception in "cocktail party" environments; (ii) visual cues help lattice formation of auditory-phonetic categories to enhance and refine speech identification.

Entities:  

Year:  2019        PMID: 31370660      PMCID: PMC6786888          DOI: 10.1121/1.5114822

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am        ISSN: 0001-4966            Impact factor:   1.840


  88 in total

Review 1.  A specialization for speech perception.

Authors:  A M Liberman; I G Mattingly
Journal:  Science       Date:  1989-01-27       Impact factor: 47.728

2.  A maximum-likelihood procedure for estimating psychometric functions: thresholds, slopes, and lapses of attention.

Authors:  Yi Shen; Virginia M Richards
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2012-08       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  Activation of auditory cortex during silent lipreading.

Authors:  G A Calvert; E T Bullmore; M J Brammer; R Campbell; S C Williams; P K McGuire; P W Woodruff; S D Iversen; A S David
Journal:  Science       Date:  1997-04-25       Impact factor: 47.728

4.  Painfree and accurate Bayesian estimation of psychometric functions for (potentially) overdispersed data.

Authors:  Heiko H Schütt; Stefan Harmeling; Jakob H Macke; Felix A Wichmann
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2016-05-02       Impact factor: 1.886

5.  Quantifying the contribution of vision to speech perception in noise.

Authors:  A MacLeod; Q Summerfield
Journal:  Br J Audiol       Date:  1987-05

6.  Mild Cognitive Impairment Is Characterized by Deficient Brainstem and Cortical Representations of Speech.

Authors:  Gavin M Bidelman; Jill E Lowther; Sunghee H Tak; Claude Alain
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2017-03-07       Impact factor: 6.167

7.  A neural basis for interindividual differences in the McGurk effect, a multisensory speech illusion.

Authors:  Audrey R Nath; Michael S Beauchamp
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2011-07-20       Impact factor: 6.556

8.  Intra-individual variability in women with breast cancer.

Authors:  Lori J Bernstein; Pamela A Catton; Ian F Tannock
Journal:  J Int Neuropsychol Soc       Date:  2014-03-12       Impact factor: 2.892

Review 9.  Neural pathways for visual speech perception.

Authors:  Lynne E Bernstein; Einat Liebenthal
Journal:  Front Neurosci       Date:  2014-12-01       Impact factor: 4.677

10.  Category learning can alter perception and its neural correlates.

Authors:  Fernanda Pérez-Gay Juárez; Tomy Sicotte; Christian Thériault; Stevan Harnad
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-12-06       Impact factor: 3.240

View more
  5 in total

1.  Plasticity in auditory categorization is supported by differential engagement of the auditory-linguistic network.

Authors:  Gavin M Bidelman; Breya Walker
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2019-07-13       Impact factor: 6.556

2.  Auditory cortex is susceptible to lexical influence as revealed by informational vs. energetic masking of speech categorization.

Authors:  Jared A Carter; Gavin M Bidelman
Journal:  Brain Res       Date:  2021-02-23       Impact factor: 3.252

3.  Autonomic Nervous System Correlates of Speech Categorization Revealed Through Pupillometry.

Authors:  Gwyneth A Lewis; Gavin M Bidelman
Journal:  Front Neurosci       Date:  2020-01-10       Impact factor: 4.677

4.  Auditory categorical processing for speech is modulated by inherent musical listening skills.

Authors:  Kelsey Mankel; Jacob Barber; Gavin M Bidelman
Journal:  Neuroreport       Date:  2020-01-27       Impact factor: 1.703

5.  Effects of Noise on the Behavioral and Neural Categorization of Speech.

Authors:  Gavin M Bidelman; Lauren C Bush; Alex M Boudreaux
Journal:  Front Neurosci       Date:  2020-02-27       Impact factor: 4.677

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.