24
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Spatio‐temporal distribution of brain activity associated with audio‐visually congruent and incongruent speech and the McGurk Effect

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Introduction

          Spatio‐temporal distributions of cortical activity to audio‐visual presentations of meaningless vowel‐consonant‐vowels and the effects of audio‐visual congruence/incongruence, with emphasis on the McGurk effect, were studied. The McGurk effect occurs when a clearly audible syllable with one consonant, is presented simultaneously with a visual presentation of a face articulating a syllable with a different consonant and the resulting percept is a syllable with a consonant other than the auditorily presented one.

          Methods

          Twenty subjects listened to pairs of audio‐visually congruent or incongruent utterances and indicated whether pair members were the same or not. Source current densities of event‐related potentials to the first utterance in the pair were estimated and effects of stimulus–response combinations, brain area, hemisphere, and clarity of visual articulation were assessed.

          Results

          Auditory cortex, superior parietal cortex, and middle temporal cortex were the most consistently involved areas across experimental conditions. Early (<200 msec) processing of the consonant was overall prominent in the left hemisphere, except right hemisphere prominence in superior parietal cortex and secondary visual cortex. Clarity of visual articulation impacted activity in secondary visual cortex and Wernicke's area. McGurk perception was associated with decreased activity in primary and secondary auditory cortices and Wernicke's area before 100 msec, increased activity around 100 msec which decreased again around 180 msec. Activity in Broca's area was unaffected by McGurk perception and was only increased to congruent audio‐visual stimuli 30–70 msec following consonant onset.

          Conclusions

          The results suggest left hemisphere prominence in the effects of stimulus and response conditions on eight brain areas involved in dynamically distributed parallel processing of audio‐visual integration. Initially (30–70 msec) subcortical contributions to auditory cortex, superior parietal cortex, and middle temporal cortex occur. During 100–140 msec, peristriate visual influences and Wernicke's area join in the processing. Resolution of incongruent audio‐visual inputs is then attempted, and if successful, McGurk perception occurs and cortical activity in left hemisphere further increases between 170 and 260 msec.

          Related collections

          Most cited references103

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Removing electroencephalographic artifacts by blind source separation.

          Eye movements, eye blinks, cardiac signals, muscle noise, and line noise present serious problems for electroencephalographic (EEG) interpretation and analysis when rejecting contaminated EEG segments results in an unacceptable data loss. Many methods have been proposed to remove artifacts from EEG recordings, especially those arising from eye movements and blinks. Often regression in the time or frequency domain is performed on parallel EEG and electrooculographic (EOG) recordings to derive parameters characterizing the appearance and spread of EOG artifacts in the EEG channels. Because EEG and ocular activity mix bidirectionally, regressing out eye artifacts inevitably involves subtracting relevant EEG signals from each record as well. Regression methods become even more problematic when a good regressing channel is not available for each artifact source, as in the case of muscle artifacts. Use of principal component analysis (PCA) has been proposed to remove eye artifacts from multichannel EEG. However, PCA cannot completely separate eye artifacts from brain signals, especially when they have comparable amplitudes. Here, we propose a new and generally applicable method for removing a wide variety of artifacts from EEG records based on blind source separation by independent component analysis (ICA). Our results on EEG data collected from normal and autistic subjects show that ICA can effectively detect, separate, and remove contamination from a wide variety of artifactual sources in EEG records with results comparing favorably with those obtained using regression and PCA methods. ICA can also be used to analyze blink-related brain activity.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Influence of cognitive control and mismatch on the N2 component of the ERP: a review.

            Recent years have seen an explosion of research on the N2 component of the event-related potential, a negative wave peaking between 200 and 350 ms after stimulus onset. This research has focused on the influence of "cognitive control," a concept that covers strategic monitoring and control of motor responses. However, rich research traditions focus on attention and novelty or mismatch as determinants of N2 amplitude. We focus on paradigms that elicit N2 components with an anterior scalp distribution, namely, cognitive control, novelty, and sequential matching, and argue that the anterior N2 should be divided into separate control- and mismatch-related subcomponents. We also argue that the oddball N2 belongs in the family of attention-related N2 components that, in the visual modality, have a posterior scalp distribution. We focus on the visual modality for which components with frontocentral and more posterior scalp distributions can be readily distinguished.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              10/20, 10/10, and 10/5 systems revisited: their validity as relative head-surface-based positioning systems.

              With the advent of multi-channel EEG hardware systems and the concurrent development of topographic and tomographic signal source localization methods, the international 10/20 system, a standard system for electrode positioning with 21 electrodes, was extended to higher density electrode settings such as 10/10 and 10/5 systems, allowing more than 300 electrode positions. However, their effectiveness as relative head-surface-based positioning systems has not been examined. We previously developed a virtual 10/20 measurement algorithm that can analyze any structural MR head and brain image. Extending this method to the virtual 10/10 and 10/5 measurement algorithms, we analyzed the MR images of 17 healthy subjects. The acquired scalp positions of the 10/10 and 10/5 systems were normalized to the Montreal Neurological Institute (MNI) stereotactic coordinates and their spatial variability was assessed. We described and examined the effects of spatial variability due to the selection of positioning systems and landmark placement strategies. As long as a detailed rule for a particular system was provided, it yielded precise landmark positions on the scalp. Moreover, we evaluated the effective spatial resolution of 329 scalp landmark positions of the 10/5 system for multi-subject studies. As long as a detailed rule for landmark setting was provided, 241 scalp positions could be set effectively when there was no overlapping of two neighboring positions. Importantly, 10/10 positions could be well separated on a scalp without overlapping. This study presents a referential framework for establishing the effective spatial resolutions of 10/20, 10/10, and 10/5 systems as relative head-surface-based positioning systems.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Brain Behav
                Brain Behav
                10.1002/(ISSN)2157-9032
                BRB3
                Brain and Behavior
                John Wiley and Sons Inc. (Hoboken )
                2162-3279
                15 October 2015
                November 2015
                : 5
                : 11 ( doiID: 10.1002/brb3.2015.5.issue-11 )
                : e00407
                Affiliations
                [ 1 ] Evoked Potentials LaboratoryTechnion ‐ Israel Institute of Technology Haifa 32000Israel
                Author notes
                [*] [* ] Correspondence

                Hillel Pratt, Evoked Potentials Laboratory, Behavioral Biology, Gutwirth Bldg., Technion ‐ Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa 32000, Israel. Tel: +972 4 8292321; Fax: +972 4 9930140; E‐mail: hillel@ 123456tx.technion.ac.il

                Article
                BRB3407
                10.1002/brb3.407
                4667754
                26664791
                84ecfd8e-9eb2-4e7c-a887-619f2d1dcf9f
                © 2015 The Authors. Brain and Behavior published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

                This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 08 March 2015
                : 26 August 2015
                : 07 September 2015
                Page count
                Pages: 25
                Funding
                Funded by: U.S.‐Israel Binational Science Foundation
                Funded by: Rappaport Family Institute for Research in the Medical Sciences
                Categories
                Original Research
                Original Research
                Custom metadata
                2.0
                brb3407
                November 2015
                Converter:WILEY_ML3GV2_TO_NLMPMC version:4.7.2 mode:remove_FC converted:02.12.2015

                Neurosciences
                event‐related potentials,hemispheres,multimodal integration
                Neurosciences
                event‐related potentials, hemispheres, multimodal integration

                Comments

                Comment on this article