4.5 Article

Electrophysiological evidence for Audio-visuo-lingual speech integration

期刊

NEUROPSYCHOLOGIA
卷 109, 期 -, 页码 126-133

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2017.12.024

关键词

Speech perception; Audio-visual integration; Visual tongue feedback; Action perception; EEG

资金

  1. European Research Council (FP7) [339152]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Recent neurophysiological studies demonstrate that audio-visual speech integration partly operates through temporal expectations and speech-specific predictions. From these results, one common view is that the binding of auditory and visual, lipread, speech cues relies on their joint probability and prior associative audio-visual experience. The present EEG study examined whether visual tongue movements integrate with relevant speech sounds, despite little associative audio-visual experience between the two modalities. A second objective was to determine possible similarities and differences of audio-visual speech integration between unusual audio-visuo-lingual and classical audio-visuo-labial modalities. To this aim, participants were presented with auditory, visual, and audio-visual isolated syllables, with the visual presentation related to either a sagittal view of the tongue movements or a facial view of the lip movements of a speaker, with lingual and facial movements previously recorded by an ultrasound imaging system and a video camera. In line with previous EEG studies, our results revealed an amplitude decrease and a latency facilitation of P2 auditory evoked potentials in both audiovisual-lingual and audio-visuo-labial conditions compared to the sum of unimodal conditions. These results argue against the view that auditory and visual speech cues solely integrate based on prior associative audiovisual perceptual experience. Rather, they suggest that dynamic and phonetic informational cues are sharable across sensory modalities, possibly through a cross-modal transfer of implicit articulatory motor knowledge.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据