Cargando…

Multisensory integration of speech sounds with letters vs. visual speech: only visual speech induces the mismatch negativity

Numerous studies have demonstrated that the vision of lip movements can alter the perception of auditory speech syllables (McGurk effect). While there is ample evidence for integration of text and auditory speech, there are only a few studies on the orthographic equivalent of the McGurk effect. Here...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Stekelenburg, Jeroen J., Keetels, Mirjam, Vroomen, Jean
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5969231/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29537657
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ejn.13908
_version_ 1783325929333850112
author Stekelenburg, Jeroen J.
Keetels, Mirjam
Vroomen, Jean
author_facet Stekelenburg, Jeroen J.
Keetels, Mirjam
Vroomen, Jean
author_sort Stekelenburg, Jeroen J.
collection PubMed
description Numerous studies have demonstrated that the vision of lip movements can alter the perception of auditory speech syllables (McGurk effect). While there is ample evidence for integration of text and auditory speech, there are only a few studies on the orthographic equivalent of the McGurk effect. Here, we examined whether written text, like visual speech, can induce an illusory change in the perception of speech sounds on both the behavioural and neural levels. In a sound categorization task, we found that both text and visual speech changed the identity of speech sounds from an /aba/‐/ada/ continuum, but the size of this audiovisual effect was considerably smaller for text than visual speech. To examine at which level in the information processing hierarchy these multisensory interactions occur, we recorded electroencephalography in an audiovisual mismatch negativity (MMN, a component of the event‐related potential reflecting preattentive auditory change detection) paradigm in which deviant text or visual speech was used to induce an illusory change in a sequence of ambiguous sounds halfway between /aba/ and /ada/. We found that only deviant visual speech induced an MMN, but not deviant text, which induced a late P3‐like positive potential. These results demonstrate that text has much weaker effects on sound processing than visual speech does, possibly because text has different biological roots than visual speech.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5969231
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-59692312018-05-30 Multisensory integration of speech sounds with letters vs. visual speech: only visual speech induces the mismatch negativity Stekelenburg, Jeroen J. Keetels, Mirjam Vroomen, Jean Eur J Neurosci Cognitive Neuroscience Numerous studies have demonstrated that the vision of lip movements can alter the perception of auditory speech syllables (McGurk effect). While there is ample evidence for integration of text and auditory speech, there are only a few studies on the orthographic equivalent of the McGurk effect. Here, we examined whether written text, like visual speech, can induce an illusory change in the perception of speech sounds on both the behavioural and neural levels. In a sound categorization task, we found that both text and visual speech changed the identity of speech sounds from an /aba/‐/ada/ continuum, but the size of this audiovisual effect was considerably smaller for text than visual speech. To examine at which level in the information processing hierarchy these multisensory interactions occur, we recorded electroencephalography in an audiovisual mismatch negativity (MMN, a component of the event‐related potential reflecting preattentive auditory change detection) paradigm in which deviant text or visual speech was used to induce an illusory change in a sequence of ambiguous sounds halfway between /aba/ and /ada/. We found that only deviant visual speech induced an MMN, but not deviant text, which induced a late P3‐like positive potential. These results demonstrate that text has much weaker effects on sound processing than visual speech does, possibly because text has different biological roots than visual speech. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2018-04-01 2018-05 /pmc/articles/PMC5969231/ /pubmed/29537657 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ejn.13908 Text en © 2018 The Authors. European Journal of Neuroscience published by Federation of European Neuroscience Societies and John Wiley & Sons Ltd. This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Cognitive Neuroscience
Stekelenburg, Jeroen J.
Keetels, Mirjam
Vroomen, Jean
Multisensory integration of speech sounds with letters vs. visual speech: only visual speech induces the mismatch negativity
title Multisensory integration of speech sounds with letters vs. visual speech: only visual speech induces the mismatch negativity
title_full Multisensory integration of speech sounds with letters vs. visual speech: only visual speech induces the mismatch negativity
title_fullStr Multisensory integration of speech sounds with letters vs. visual speech: only visual speech induces the mismatch negativity
title_full_unstemmed Multisensory integration of speech sounds with letters vs. visual speech: only visual speech induces the mismatch negativity
title_short Multisensory integration of speech sounds with letters vs. visual speech: only visual speech induces the mismatch negativity
title_sort multisensory integration of speech sounds with letters vs. visual speech: only visual speech induces the mismatch negativity
topic Cognitive Neuroscience
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5969231/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29537657
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ejn.13908
work_keys_str_mv AT stekelenburgjeroenj multisensoryintegrationofspeechsoundswithlettersvsvisualspeechonlyvisualspeechinducesthemismatchnegativity
AT keetelsmirjam multisensoryintegrationofspeechsoundswithlettersvsvisualspeechonlyvisualspeechinducesthemismatchnegativity
AT vroomenjean multisensoryintegrationofspeechsoundswithlettersvsvisualspeechonlyvisualspeechinducesthemismatchnegativity