↓ Skip to main content

Speech through ears and eyes: interfacing the senses with the supramodal brain

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
71 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
145 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
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
Speech through ears and eyes: interfacing the senses with the supramodal brain
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00388
Pubmed ID
Authors

Virginie van Wassenhove

Abstract

The comprehension of auditory-visual (AV) speech integration has greatly benefited from recent advances in neurosciences and multisensory research. AV speech integration raises numerous questions relevant to the computational rules needed for binding information (within and across sensory modalities), the representational format in which speech information is encoded in the brain (e.g., auditory vs. articulatory), or how AV speech ultimately interfaces with the linguistic system. The following non-exhaustive review provides a set of empirical findings and theoretical questions that have fed the original proposal for predictive coding in AV speech processing. More recently, predictive coding has pervaded many fields of inquiries and positively reinforced the need to refine the notion of internal models in the brain together with their implications for the interpretation of neural activity recorded with various neuroimaging techniques. However, it is argued here that the strength of predictive coding frameworks reside in the specificity of the generative internal models not in their generality; specifically, internal models come with a set of rules applied on particular representational formats themselves depending on the levels and the network structure at which predictive operations occur. As such, predictive coding in AV speech owes to specify the level(s) and the kinds of internal predictions that are necessary to account for the perceptual benefits or illusions observed in the field. Among those specifications, the actual content of a prediction comes first and foremost, followed by the representational granularity of that prediction in time. This review specifically presents a focused discussion on these issues.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 145 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 5 3%
Netherlands 2 1%
United Kingdom 2 1%
Germany 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Poland 1 <1%
Unknown 131 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 35 24%
Researcher 31 21%
Student > Master 18 12%
Other 8 6%
Professor 7 5%
Other 26 18%
Unknown 20 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 41 28%
Neuroscience 28 19%
Linguistics 10 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 5%
Engineering 7 5%
Other 18 12%
Unknown 34 23%
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 12 July 2013.
All research outputs
#20,196,270
of 22,714,025 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#23,854
of 29,507 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#248,772
of 280,752 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#851
of 969 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,714,025 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,507 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 280,752 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 969 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.