4.6 Article

The processing of audio-visual speech: empirical and neural bases

Journal

Publisher

ROYAL SOC
DOI: 10.1098/rstb.2007.2155

Keywords

speech reading; audiovisual speech processing; visual speech

Categories

Funding

  1. ESRC [RES-620-28-6001] Funding Source: UKRI
  2. Economic and Social Research Council [RES-620-28-6001] Funding Source: researchfish
  3. Medical Research Council Funding Source: Medline
  4. Wellcome Trust Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In this selective review, I outline a number of ways in which seeing the talker affects auditory perception of speech, including, but not confined to, the McGurk effect. To date, studies suggest that all linguistic levels are susceptible to visual influence, and that two main modes of processing can be described: a complementary mode, whereby vision provides information more efficiently than hearing for some under-specified parts of the speech stream, and a correlated mode, whereby vision partially duplicates information about dynamic articulatory patterning. Cortical correlates of seen speech suggest that at the neurological as well as the perceptual level, auditory processing of speech is affected by vision, so that 'auditory speech regions' are activated by seen speech. The processing of natural speech, whether it is heard, seen or heard and seen, activates the perisylvian language regions (left > right). It is highly probable that activation occurs in a specific order. First, superior temporal, then inferior parietal and finally inferior frontal regions (left > right) are activated. There is some differentiation of the visual input stream to the core perisylvian language system, suggesting that complementary seen speech information makes special use of the visual ventral processing stream, while for correlated visual speech, the dorsal processing stream, which is sensitive to visual movement, may be relatively more involved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available