↓ Skip to main content

Visual context due to speech-reading suppresses the auditory response to acoustic interruptions in speech

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neuroscience, July 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
29 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Visual context due to speech-reading suppresses the auditory response to acoustic interruptions in speech
Published in
Frontiers in Neuroscience, July 2014
DOI 10.3389/fnins.2014.00173
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jyoti Bhat, Mark A. Pitt, Antoine J. Shahin

Abstract

Speech reading enhances auditory perception in noise. One means by which this perceptual facilitation comes about is through information from visual networks reinforcing the encoding of the congruent speech signal by ignoring interfering acoustic signals. We tested this hypothesis neurophysiologically by acquiring EEG while individuals listened to words with a fixed portion of each word replaced by white noise. Congruent (meaningful) or incongruent (reversed frames) mouth movements accompanied the words. Individuals judged whether they heard the words as continuous (illusion) or interrupted (illusion failure) through the noise. We hypothesized that congruent, as opposed to incongruent, mouth movements should further enhance illusory perception by suppressing the auditory cortex's response to interruption onsets and offsets. Indeed, we found that the N1 auditory evoked potential (AEP) to noise onsets and offsets was reduced when individuals experienced the illusion during congruent, but not incongruent, audiovisual streams. This N1 inhibitory effect was most prominent at noise offsets, suggesting that visual influences on auditory perception are instigated to a greater extent during noisy periods. These findings suggest that visual context due to speech-reading disengages (inhibits) neural processes associated with interfering sounds (e.g., noisy interruptions) during speech perception.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 3 10%
Netherlands 1 3%
United States 1 3%
Unknown 24 83%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 45%
Researcher 3 10%
Student > Postgraduate 2 7%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 7%
Student > Master 2 7%
Other 4 14%
Unknown 3 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 10 34%
Neuroscience 3 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 10%
Linguistics 2 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 7%
Other 4 14%
Unknown 5 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 September 2014.
All research outputs
#17,723,634
of 22,758,963 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#7,631
of 9,874 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#154,913
of 227,684 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#89
of 126 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,758,963 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,874 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.1. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 227,684 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 126 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.