4.3 Article

Auditory-visual speech perception examined by fMRl and. PET

Journal

NEUROSCIENCE RESEARCH
Volume 47, Issue 3, Pages 277-287

Publisher

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/S0168-0102(03)00214-1

Keywords

cross-modal binding; auditory-visual integration; speech perception; the McGurk effect; fMRI; PET; superior temporal sulcus

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Cross-modal binding in auditory-visual speech perception was investigated by using the McGurk effect, a phenomenon in which hearing is altered by incongruent visual mouth movements. We used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and positron emission tomography (PET). In each experiment, the subjects were asked to identify spoken syllables ('ba', 'da', 'ga') presented auditorily, visually, or audiovisually (incongruent Stimuli). For the auditory component of the stimuli, there were two conditions of intelligibility (High versus Low) as determined by the signal-to-noise (SN) ratio. The control task was visual talker identification of still faces. In the Low intelligibility condition in which the auditory component of the speech was harder to hear, the visual influence was much stronger. Brain imaging data showed bilateral activations specific to the unimodal auditory stimuli (in the temporal cortex) and visual stimuli (in the MT/V5). For the bimodal audiovisual stimuli, activation in the left temporal cortex extended more posteriorly toward the visual-specific area in the Low intelligibility condition. The direct comparison between the Low and High audiovisual conditions showed increased activations in the posterior part of the left superior temporal sulcus (STS), indicating its relationship with the stronger visual influence. It was discussed that this region is likely to be involved in cross-modal binding of auditory-visual speech. (C) 2003 Elsevier Ireland Ltd and the Japan Neuroscience Society. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available