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...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
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 |