Generalization of content and emotional prosody across speakers varying in gender in youth with Autism Spectrum Disorder

Brooks, Patricia J.; Gaggi, Naomi; Ploog, Bertram O.

doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2018.08.004

Cited by 4 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 53 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It was found that the right anterior caudal ramus of the pSTS is longer in some patients with ASD, and the length of this structure is negatively correlated with fixation time to eyes and performance on emotional recognition tasks (Hotier et al 2017). Additionally, individuals with ASD display difficulty extracting affective prosody from auditory speech (Brooks et al 2018). Interestingly, Tardif et al (2007) found that unlike TD children, ASD children's categorization of emotional facial expressions was facilitated by congruent vocalizations as well as slower presentation of stimuli, which may suggest decreased salience of visual social stimuli, and a resulting deficit in synthesizing higher order auditory and visual information into a unified perceptual representation.…”

Section: Autism Spectrum Disordermentioning

confidence: 99%

Visual Influences on Auditory Behavioral, Neural, and Perceptual Processes: A Review

Opoku-Baah

Schoenhaut

Vassall

et al. 2021

JARO

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In a naturalistic environment, auditory cues are often accompanied by information from other senses, which can be redundant with or complementary to the auditory information. Although the multisensory interactions derived from this combination of information and that shape auditory function are seen across all sensory modalities, our greatest body of knowledge to date centers on how vision influences audition. In this review, we attempt to capture the state of our understanding at this point in time regarding this topic. Following a general introduction, the review is divided into 5 sections. In the first section, we review the psychophysical evidence in humans regarding vision’s influence in audition, making the distinction between vision’s ability to enhance versus alter auditory performance and perception. Three examples are then described that serve to highlight vision’s ability to modulate auditory processes: spatial ventriloquism, cross-modal dynamic capture, and the McGurk effect. The final part of this section discusses models that have been built based on available psychophysical data and that seek to provide greater mechanistic insights into how vision can impact audition. The second section reviews the extant neuroimaging and far-field imaging work on this topic, with a strong emphasis on the roles of feedforward and feedback processes, on imaging insights into the causal nature of audiovisual interactions, and on the limitations of current imaging-based approaches. These limitations point to a greater need for machine-learning-based decoding approaches toward understanding how auditory representations are shaped by vision. The third section reviews the wealth of neuroanatomical and neurophysiological data from animal models that highlights audiovisual interactions at the neuronal and circuit level in both subcortical and cortical structures. It also speaks to the functional significance of audiovisual interactions for two critically important facets of auditory perception—scene analysis and communication. The fourth section presents current evidence for alterations in audiovisual processes in three clinical conditions: autism, schizophrenia, and sensorineural hearing loss. These changes in audiovisual interactions are postulated to have cascading effects on higher-order domains of dysfunction in these conditions. The final section highlights ongoing work seeking to leverage our knowledge of audiovisual interactions to develop better remediation approaches to these sensory-based disorders, founded in concepts of perceptual plasticity in which vision has been shown to have the capacity to facilitate auditory learning.

show abstract

Section: Autism Spectrum Disordermentioning

confidence: 99%