Previous exposure to intact speech increases intelligibility of its digitally degraded counterpart as a function of stimulus complexity

Recent studies have shown that acoustically distorted sentences can be perceived as either unintelligible or intelligible depending on whether one has previously been exposed to the undistorted, intelligible versions of the sentences. This allows studying processes specifically related to speech intelligibility since any change between the responses to the distorted stimuli before and after the presentation of their undistorted counterparts cannot be attributed to acoustic variability but, rather, to the successful mapping of sensory information onto memory representations. To estimate how the complexity of the message is reflected in speech comprehension, we applied this rapid change in perception to behavioral and magnetoencephalography (MEG) experiments using vowels, words and sentences. In the experiments, stimuli were initially presented to the subject in a distorted form, after which undistorted versions of the stimuli were presented. Finally, the original distorted stimuli were presented once more. The resulting increase in intelligibility observed for the second presentation of the distorted stimuli depended on the complexity of the stimulus: vowels remained unintelligible (behaviorally measured intelligibility 27%) whereas the intelligibility of the words increased from 19% to 45% and that of the sentences from 31% to 65%. This increase in the intelligibility of the degraded stimuli was reflected as an enhancement of activity in the auditory cortex and surrounding areas at early latencies of 130-160ms. In the same regions, increasing stimulus complexity attenuated mean currents at latencies of 130-160ms whereas at latencies of 200-270ms the mean currents increased. These modulations in cortical activity may reflect feedback from top-down mechanisms enhancing the extraction of information from speech. The behavioral results suggest that memory-driven expectancies can have a significant effect on speech comprehension, especially in acoustically adverse conditions where the bottom-up information is decreased.

[1]  J. Dorfman,et al.  Sublexical components in implicit memory for novel words. , 1994, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[2]  Matthew H. Davis,et al.  Neural Oscillations Carry Speech Rhythm through to Comprehension , 2012, Front. Psychology.

[3]  Antoine J. Shahin,et al.  Neural mechanisms for illusory filling-in of degraded speech , 2009, NeuroImage.

[4]  Jonas Obleser,et al.  Disentangling syntax and intelligibility in auditory language comprehension , 2009, Human brain mapping.

[5]  Roy D. Patterson,et al.  Sustained Magnetic Fields Reveal Separate Sites for Sound Level and Temporal Regularity in Human Auditory Cortex , 2002, NeuroImage.

[6]  W. Marslen-Wilson.  Functional parallelism in spoken word-recognition , 1987, Cognition.

[7]  S. Taulu,et al.  Spatiotemporal signal space separation method for rejecting nearby interference in MEG measurements , 2006, Physics in medicine and biology.

[8]  Christo Pantev,et al.  Sound Processing Hierarchy within Human Auditory Cortex , 2011, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[9]  L L Elliott,et al.  Development of a test of speech intelligibility in noise using sentence materials with controlled word predictability. , 1977, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[10]  Ana B. Chica,et al.  Attentional Routes to Conscious Perception , 2012, Front. Psychology.

[11]  Cassia Valentini-Botinhao,et al.  Using linguistic predictability and the lombard effect to increase the intelligibility of synthetic speech in noise , 2014, INTERSPEECH.

[12]  S. Scott,et al.  Functional Integration across Brain Regions Improves Speech Perception under Adverse Listening Conditions , 2007, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[13]  Matthew H. Davis,et al.  Hearing speech sounds: Top-down influences on the interface between audition and speech perception , 2007, Hearing Research.

[14]  G. A. Miller,et al.  Some perceptual consequences of linguistic rules , 1963 .

[15]  J. Belliveau,et al.  Short-term plasticity in auditory cognition , 2007, Trends in Neurosciences.

[16]  P Sterzer,et al.  Contributions of sensory input, auditory search and verbal comprehension to cortical activity during speech processing. , 2004, Cerebral cortex.

[17]  Koji Inui,et al.  Auditory sustained field responses to periodic noise , 2012, BMC Neuroscience.

[18]  T. Picton,et al.  The N1 wave of the human electric and magnetic response to sound: a review and an analysis of the component structure. , 1987, Psychophysiology.

[19]  Paavo Alku,et al.  Disentangling the effects of phonation and articulation: Hemispheric asymmetries in the auditory N1m response of the human brain , 2005, BMC Neuroscience.

[20]  J. Pernier,et al.  Oscillatory γ-Band (30–70 Hz) Activity Induced by a Visual Search Task in Humans , 1997, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[21]  S. Hochstein,et al.  The reverse hierarchy theory of visual perceptual learning , 2004, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[22]  Matthew H. Davis,et al.  Brain regions recruited for the effortful comprehension of noise-vocoded words , 2012 .

[23]  Ann R Bradlow,et al.  Semantic and phonetic enhancements for speech-in-noise recognition by native and non-native listeners. , 2007, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[24]  Paul M. Briley,et al.  Mechanisms of adaptation in human auditory cortex. , 2013, Journal of neurophysiology.

[25]  Anders M. Dale,et al.  An automated labeling system for subdividing the human cerebral cortex on MRI scans into gyral based regions of interest , 2006, NeuroImage.

[26]  Risto Näätänen,et al.  Sustained fields of tones and glides reflect tonotopy of the auditory cortex , 1995, Neuroreport.

[27]  Paavo Alku,et al.  Transient and sustained cortical activity elicited by connected speech of varying intelligibility , 2012, BMC Neuroscience.

[28]  Daniel L. Schacter,et al.  Priming effects in word-fragment completion are independent of recognition memory. , 1982 .

[29]  B. Ross,et al.  Is the auditory evoked P2 response a biomarker of learning? , 2014, Front. Syst. Neurosci..

[30]  Robert M. Gray,et al.  Quantization noise spectra , 1990, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory.

[31]  C. Pantev,et al.  Tonotopic organization of the sources of human auditory steady-state responses , 1996, Hearing Research.

[32]  Ville Mäkinen,et al.  Analysis of the structure of time-frequency information in electromagnetic brain signals , 2006 .

[33]  John Morton,et al.  Facilitation in Word Recognition: Experiments Causing Change in the Logogen Model , 1979 .

[34]  C Pantev,et al.  Magnetic and electric brain activity evoked by the processing of tone and vowel stimuli , 1995, The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience.

[35]  Rajka Smiljanic,et al.  Acoustic and semantic enhancements for children with cochlear implants. , 2013, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[36]  Matthew H. Davis,et al.  Hierarchical Processing in Spoken Language Comprehension , 2003, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[37]  Paavo Alku,et al.  Human Cortical Dynamics Determined by Speech Fundamental Frequency , 2002, NeuroImage.

[38]  K A Martin,et al.  A brief history of the "feature detector". , 1994, Cerebral cortex.

[39]  J. Bowers,et al.  Different perceptual codes support priming for words and pseudowords: was Morton right all along? , 1996, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[40]  S. Makeig,et al.  A 40-Hz auditory potential recorded from the human scalp. , 1981, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[41]  Lori L. Holt,et al.  Are there interactive processes in speech perception? , 2006, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[42]  E. Halgren,et al.  Head position in the MEG helmet affects the sensitivity to anterior sources. , 2004, Neurology & clinical neurophysiology : NCN.

[43]  M Hämäläinen,et al.  Neuromagnetic steady-state responses to auditory stimuli. , 1989, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[44]  Martin Luessi,et al.  MNE software for processing MEG and EEG data , 2014, NeuroImage.

[45]  R. Salmelin.  Clinical neurophysiology of language: The MEG approach , 2007, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[46]  Adèle,et al.  The Development and Neural Bases of Higher Cognitive Functions. A conference. May 20-24, 1989, Philadelphia, Pa. , 1990, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

[47]  Paavo Alku,et al.  Glides in speech fundamental frequency are reflected in the auditory N1m response , 2004, Neuroreport.

[48]  Jonas Obleser,et al.  Bilateral Speech Comprehension Reflects Differential Sensitivity to Spectral and Temporal Features , 2008, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[49]  R. Ilmoniemi,et al.  Interpreting magnetic fields of the brain: minimum norm estimates , 2006, Medical and Biological Engineering and Computing.

[50]  P. Alku,et al.  Sensitivity of the human auditory cortex to acoustic degradation of speech and non-speech sounds , 2010, BMC Neuroscience.

[51]  Paavo Alku,et al.  Responsiveness of the human auditory cortex to degraded speech sounds: Reduction of amplitude resolution vs. additive noise , 2011, Brain Research.

[52]  Jonas Obleser,et al.  Magnetic Brain Response Mirrors Extraction of Phonological Features from Spoken Vowels , 2004, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[53]  K. Forster,et al.  Masked repetition priming: Lexical activation or novel memory trace? , 1990 .

[54]  Seppo P. Ahlfors,et al.  Assessing and improving the spatial accuracy in MEG source localization by depth-weighted minimum-norm estimates , 2006, NeuroImage.

[55]  Lori L. Holt,et al.  Reflections on mirror neurons and speech perception , 2009, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[56]  B. Ross,et al.  COGNITIVE NEUROSCIENCE AND NEUROPSYCHOLOGY: Timbre-specific enhancement of auditory cortical representations in musicians , 2022 .

[57]  Paavo Alku,et al.  Cortical processing of degraded speech sounds: Effects of distortion type and continuity , 2012, NeuroImage.

[58]  D. Poeppel,et al.  Temporal context in speech processing and attentional stream selection: A behavioral and neural perspective , 2012, Brain and Language.

[59]  Minna Huotilainen,et al.  Is there a direct neural correlate for memory-trace formation in audition? , 2007, Neuroreport.

[60]  Mikko Sams,et al.  Perceiving identical sounds as speech or non-speech modulates activity in the left posterior superior temporal sulcus , 2006, NeuroImage.

[61]  Martin Luessi,et al.  MEG and EEG data analysis with MNE-Python , 2013, Front. Neuroinform..

[62]  Matthew H. Davis,et al.  Hierarchical Processing for Speech in Human Auditory Cortex and Beyond , 2010, Front. Hum. Neurosci..

[63]  Matthew H. Davis,et al.  Effortful Listening: The Processing of Degraded Speech Depends Critically on Attention , 2012, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[64]  Sophie K. Scott,et al.  A little more conversation, a little less action — candidate roles for the motor cortex in speech perception , 2009, Nature Reviews Neuroscience.

[65]  James L. McClelland,et al.  The TRACE model of speech perception , 1986, Cognitive Psychology.

[66]  J. Silkes.  Masked Repetition Priming Treatment for Anomia. , 2018, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[67]  E. Halgren,et al.  Dynamic Statistical Parametric Mapping Combining fMRI and MEG for High-Resolution Imaging of Cortical Activity , 2000, Neuron.

[68]  K. Crowley,et al.  A review of the evidence for P2 being an independent component process: age, sleep and modality , 2004, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[69]  Paavo Alku,et al.  Representation of the vocal roughness of aperiodic speech sounds in the auditory cortex. , 2009, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[70]  Paul A. Kolers,et al.  Processing of visible language , 1979 .

[71]  H. Tiitinen,et al.  Mismatch negativity (MMN), the deviance-elicited auditory deflection, explained. , 2010, Psychophysiology.

[72]  Paavo Alku,et al.  The right-hemispheric auditory cortex in humans is sensitive to degraded speech sounds , 2007, Neuroreport.

[73]  C. Eulitz,et al.  Top-down knowledge supports the retrieval of lexical information from degraded speech , 2007, Brain Research.

[74]  B. Ross,et al.  Stimulus experience modifies auditory neuromagnetic responses in young and older listeners , 2009, Hearing Research.

[75]  M. Masson,et al.  Provided for Non-commercial Research and Educational Use Only. Not for Reproduction, Distribution or Commercial Use. Memory Recruitment: a Backward Idea about Masked Priming , 2022 .

[76]  Erkki Oja,et al.  Independent component analysis: algorithms and applications , 2000, Neural Networks.

[77]  Jonathan H. Venezia,et al.  Hierarchical organization of human auditory cortex: evidence from acoustic invariance in the response to intelligible speech. , 2010, Cerebral cortex.

[78]  A. Dale,et al.  Distributed current estimates using cortical orientation constraints , 2006, Human brain mapping.

[79]  Karl J. Friston,et al.  The Cortical Dynamics of Intelligible Speech , 2008, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[80]  R. Diamond,et al.  American Psychological Association Inc Activation of Existing Memories in Anterograde Amnesia , 2022 .

[81]  A. Diamond.  The development and neural bases of higher cognitive functions. Introduction. , 1990, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

[82]  O. Bertrand,et al.  Oscillatory gamma-band (30-70 Hz) activity induced by a visual search task in humans. , 1997, The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience.

[83]  E. Schröger,et al.  Familiarity affects environmental sound processing outside the focus of attention: An event-related potential study , 2009, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[84]  E Tulving,et al.  Priming and human memory systems. , 1990, Science.

[85]  A. Boothroyd,et al.  Mathematical treatment of context effects in phoneme and word recognition. , 1988, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.