The Influence of Form- and Meaning-Based Predictions on Cortical Speech Processing Under Challenging Listening Conditions: A MEG Study

Signoret, Carine; Andersen, Lau M.; Dahlström, Örjan; Blomberg, Rina; Rudner, Mary; Rönnberg, Jerker

doi:10.3389/fnins.2020.573254

Cited by 6 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 70 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The types of error responses we obtain may well be captured by the NAM ( Luce and Pisoni, 1998 ), but in addition we have also made clear that the prediction- postdiction cycle may prime or direct the individual ELU system to other aspects of representation in LTM that then helps the system to surpass the threshold and retrieve the correct lexical candidate. A good example of such priming by sentence context can be found in a MEG study by Signoret et al (2020) , where phonological and semantic error responses were in focus.…”

Section: Comparison With Other Modelsmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…In a recent study using magnetoencephalography (MEG, Signoret et al, 2020 ), participants were to decide whether the final word in a sentence was expected or not. The participants had studied the sentences before the actual experiment, so expectations on the final word were strong.…”

Section: The Elu Model Takes Shapementioning

confidence: 99%

“…In our research, we have emphasized the consequence of mismatch in terms WM involvement ( Rönnberg, 2003 ). Relevant to the current paper is that the mismatch notion has also been applied to grammatical levels of language processing ( Federmeier, 2007 ), as well as phonological/semantic processing ( Signoret et al, 2020 ). The ELU model is here proposed to be about levels of linguistic mismatch, from RAMBPHO and lexical access, via grammar to semantic coherence.…”

Section: Comparison With Other Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The mismatch negativity function automatically detects grammatical anomalies around 200 msec, after the grammatical violation point (subject–verb agreement violations or word category violations, Hasting et al, 2007 ; cf. Signoret et al, 2020 for different violation types). Tse et al (2013) and Hanna et al (2014) have both demonstrated and discussed the very early, pre-attentive and automatic Broca/inferior frontal signals of mismatch negativity for grammatical violations (around 200 msec), which could be an inspiration to our new, more elaborated ELU proposal, of co-occurring mismatch signals possible at different linguistic levels (see below).…”

Section: Comparison With Other Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

The cognitive hearing science perspective on perceiving, understanding, and remembering language: The ELU model

et al. 2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The review gives an introductory description of the successive development of data patterns based on comparisons between hearing-impaired and normal hearing participants’ speech understanding skills, later prompting the formulation of the Ease of Language Understanding (ELU) model. The model builds on the interaction between an input buffer (RAMBPHO, Rapid Automatic Multimodal Binding of PHOnology) and three memory systems: working memory (WM), semantic long-term memory (SLTM), and episodic long-term memory (ELTM). RAMBPHO input may either match or mismatch multimodal SLTM representations. Given a match, lexical access is accomplished rapidly and implicitly within approximately 100–400 ms. Given a mismatch, the prediction is that WM is engaged explicitly to repair the meaning of the input – in interaction with SLTM and ELTM – taking seconds rather than milliseconds. The multimodal and multilevel nature of representations held in WM and LTM are at the center of the review, being integral parts of the prediction and postdiction components of language understanding. Finally, some hypotheses based on a selective use-disuse of memory systems mechanism are described in relation to mild cognitive impairment and dementia. Alternative speech perception and WM models are evaluated, and recent developments and generalisations, ELU model tests, and boundaries are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Comparison With Other Modelsmentioning

confidence: 96%

Section: The Elu Model Takes Shapementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Comparison With Other Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Comparison With Other Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The cognitive hearing science perspective on perceiving, understanding, and remembering language: The ELU model

et al. 2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the human auditory cortex, speech sounds are encoded as prediction error [15][16][17][18][19][20][21]; whether that is also the case in the subcortical auditory pathway is unclear. Anatomical and physiological properties make the subcortical auditory pathway a prime candidate for predictive coding: The subcortical auditory pathway contains massive cortico-thalamic and cortico-collicular efferent systems [22][23][24][25] that are well suited to transmit complex expectations to subcortical nuclei.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fast frequency modulation is encoded according to the listener expectations in the human subcortical auditory pathway

Tabas¹,

Kiebel²,

Marxen³

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Expectations aid and bias our perception. In speech, expected words are easier to recognise than unexpected words, particularly in noisy environments, and incorrect expectations can make us misunderstand our conversational partner. Expectations are combined with the output from the sensory pathways to form representations of speech in the cerebral cortex. However, it is unclear whether expectations are propagated further down to subcortical structures to aid the encoding of the basic dynamic constituent of speech: fast frequency-modulation (FM). Fast FM-sweeps are the basic invariant constituent of consonants, and their correct encoding is fundamental for speech recognition. Here we tested the hypothesis that subjective expectations drive the encoding of fast FM-sweeps characteristic of speech in the human subcortical auditory pathway. We used fMRI to measure neural responses in the human auditory midbrain (inferior colliculus) and thalamus (medial geniculate body). Participants listened to sequences of FM-sweeps for which they held different expectations based on the task instructions. We found robust evidence that the responses in auditory midbrain and thalamus encode the difference between the acoustic input and the subjective expectations of the listener. The results indicate that FM-sweeps are already encoded at the level of the human auditory midbrain and that encoding is mainly driven by subjective expectations. We conclude that the subcortical auditory pathway is integrated in the cortical network of predictive speech processing and that expectations are used to optimise the encoding of even the most basic acoustic constituents of speech.

show abstract

Fast frequency modulation is encoded according to the listener expectations in the human subcortical auditory pathway

Tabas,

Kiebel,

Marxen

et al. 2024

Imaging Neuroscience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Expectations aid and bias our perception. For instance, expected words are easier to recognise than unexpected words, particularly in noisy environments, and incorrect expectations can make us misunderstand our conversational partner. Expectations are combined with the output from the sensory pathways to form representations of auditory objects in the cerebral cortex. Previous literature has shown that expectations propagate further down to subcortical stations during the encoding of static pure tones. However, it is unclear whether expectations also drive the subcortical encoding of subtle dynamic elements of the acoustic signal that are not represented in the tonotopic axis. Here, we tested the hypothesis that subjective expectations drive the encoding of fast frequency modulation (FM) in the human subcortical auditory pathway. We used fMRI to measure neural responses in the human auditory midbrain (inferior colliculus) and thalamus (medial geniculate body). Participants listened to sequences of FM-sweeps for which they held different expectations based on the task instructions. We found robust evidence that the responses in auditory midbrain and thalamus encode the difference between the acoustic input and the subjective expectations of the listener. The results indicate that FM-sweeps are already encoded at the level of the human auditory midbrain and that encoding is mainly driven by subjective expectations. We conclude that the subcortical auditory pathway is integrated in the cortical network of predictive processing and that expectations are used to optimise the encoding of fast dynamic elements of the acoustic signal.

show abstract

The Influence of Form- and Meaning-Based Predictions on Cortical Speech Processing Under Challenging Listening Conditions: A MEG Study

Cited by 6 publications

References 70 publications

The cognitive hearing science perspective on perceiving, understanding, and remembering language: The ELU model

The cognitive hearing science perspective on perceiving, understanding, and remembering language: The ELU model

Fast frequency modulation is encoded according to the listener expectations in the human subcortical auditory pathway

Fast frequency modulation is encoded according to the listener expectations in the human subcortical auditory pathway

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About