2022
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2022.119044
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Masking of the mouth area impairs reconstruction of acoustic speech features and higher-level segmentational features in the presence of a distractor speaker

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

2
38
0
1

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
2

Relationship

2
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 22 publications
(41 citation statements)
references
References 58 publications
2
38
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…We next implemented a receptive field model, also known as a multivariate temporal response function (mTRF) (Crosse et al, 2016), which can be interpreted as a linear filter in the brain processing a stimulus feature (speech envelope S(t)) mapped onto the continuous neural responses (MEG response over time, r(t)). The approach has been used in recent studies to study the mapping between brain responses and naturalistic speech feature representations (Broderick et al, 2018; Teng et al, 2021; Haider et al, 2022). The schematic flowchart for our analysis is shown in Fig.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…We next implemented a receptive field model, also known as a multivariate temporal response function (mTRF) (Crosse et al, 2016), which can be interpreted as a linear filter in the brain processing a stimulus feature (speech envelope S(t)) mapped onto the continuous neural responses (MEG response over time, r(t)). The approach has been used in recent studies to study the mapping between brain responses and naturalistic speech feature representations (Broderick et al, 2018; Teng et al, 2021; Haider et al, 2022). The schematic flowchart for our analysis is shown in Fig.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…An increasing number of studies has demonstrated that neural representations of acoustic (Park et al, 2015; Park et al, 2016; Hauswald et al, 2018; Park et al, 2018b; Park et al, 2018a; Biau et al, 2021; Haider et al, 2022) and linguistic, e.g., semantic features (Kutas and Federmeier, 2011; Strauss et al, 2014; Huth et al, 2016; Wang et al, 2018; Broderick et al, 2019; Kaufeld et al, 2020) of naturalistic auditory or audiovisual speech are quantifiable in Magnetoencephalography (MEG) or Electroencephalography (EEG) recordings based on frequency-domain synchronization analysis or time-domain regression analysis. Furthermore, recent developments of natural language processing (NLP) models based on machine learning algorithms, such as word vectors (Mikolov et al, 2013), have brought breakthroughs not only to the area of artificial intelligence (AI), for example, speech/text recognition, machine translations (e.g., speech-to-text), but also to the neuroscientific study of rich, naturalistic speech stimuli (Broderick et al, 2018; Pereira et al, 2018) or movie (Nishida et al, 2021).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Adult studies also suggest that face masks do not alter all aspects of speech processing. For instance, the following aspects have been shown to be negatively impacted: accuracy of word/sentence translation (Rahne et al, 2021 ), accuracy of speech recognition (e.g., Magee et al, 2020 ; Yi et al, 2021 ), listening effort (Haider et al, 2022 ), especially for hearing-impaired populations (Lee et al, 2022 ), intelligibility in noisy environments (Brown et al, 2021 ), or cortical tracking/reconstruction of audiovisual speech, especially reconstruction of high-level segmental features (i.e., phoneme and the word onset) in more challenging listening conditions (Haider et al, 2022 ). Interestingly, if speech is not placed in a noisy/challenging environment, intelligibility is usually intact (Magee et al, 2020 ; Brown et al, 2021 ; Rahne et al, 2021 ).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The little research that came prior to the pandemic had found no added cost in speech perception, for normal hearing adults listening to speech through a mask ( Mendel et al, 2008 ; Atcherson et al, 2017 ). But several recent papers have reported decreases in speech perception in mask contexts ( Radonovich et al, 2009 ; Yi et al, 2021 ), due to their impact on auditory ( Rahne et al, 2021 ), or visual cues ( Haider et al, 2022 ). Interestingly, some of those new laboratory studies presented more ecological conditions (e.g., conversational speech stimuli or the use of human speech as noise).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%