Transient and sustained cortical activity elicited by connected speech of varying intelligibility

BMC Neuroscience

Patrick J C May²  Paavo Alku¹  Ismo Miettinen²  Hannu Tiitinen² 

[1] Department of Signal Processing and Acoustics, Aalto University School of Electrical Engineering, Espoo, Finland;BioMag Laboratory, HUS Medical Imaging Center, Helsinki University Central Hospital, Helsinki, Finland

关键词: Sustained field;    Speech processing;    P2m;    N1m;    Magnetoencephalography;    Intelligibility;    Human;    Auditory cortex;    Auditory evoked magnetic fields;    Acoustic distortion;   

Others  :  1140623
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2202-13-157

 received in 2012-10-25, accepted in 2012-12-19,  发布年份 2012

【 摘 要 】

Background

The robustness of speech perception in the face of acoustic variation is founded on the ability of the auditory system to integrate the acoustic features of speech and to segregate them from background noise. This auditory scene analysis process is facilitated by top-down mechanisms, such as recognition memory for speech content. However, the cortical processes underlying these facilitatory mechanisms remain unclear. The present magnetoencephalography (MEG) study examined how the activity of auditory cortical areas is modulated by acoustic degradation and intelligibility of connected speech. The experimental design allowed for the comparison of cortical activity patterns elicited by acoustically identical stimuli which were perceived as either intelligible or unintelligible.

Results

In the experiment, a set of sentences was presented to the subject in distorted, undistorted, and again in distorted form. The intervening exposure to undistorted versions of sentences rendered the initially unintelligible, distorted sentences intelligible, as evidenced by an increase from 30% to 80% in the proportion of sentences reported as intelligible. These perceptual changes were reflected in the activity of the auditory cortex, with the auditory N1m response (~100 ms) being more prominent for the distorted stimuli than for the intact ones. In the time range of auditory P2m response (>200 ms), auditory cortex as well as regions anterior and posterior to this area generated a stronger response to sentences which were intelligible than unintelligible. During the sustained field (>300 ms), stronger activity was elicited by degraded stimuli in auditory cortex and by intelligible sentences in areas posterior to auditory cortex.

Conclusions

The current findings suggest that the auditory system comprises bottom-up and top-down processes which are reflected in transient and sustained brain activity. It appears that analysis of acoustic features occurs during the first 100 ms, and sensitivity to speech intelligibility emerges in auditory cortex and surrounding areas from 200 ms onwards. The two processes are intertwined, with the activity of auditory cortical areas being modulated by top-down processes related to memory traces of speech and supporting speech intelligibility.

【 授权许可】

   
2012 Tiitinen et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

Figure 5.

Figure 6.

Figure 7.

Figure 8.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Bregman AS: Auditory Scene Analysis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 1990.
• [2]Hood JD, Poole JP: Influence of the speaker and other factors affecting speech intelligibility. Audiology 1980, 19:434-455.
• [3]Miller GA, Heise GA, Lichten W: The intelligibility of speech as a function of the context of the test materials. J Exp Psych 1951, 41:329-335.
• [4]Van Engen KJ, Chandrasekaran B, Smiljanic R: Effects of speech clarity on recognition memory for spoken sentences. PLoS One 2012, 7(9):e43753.
• [5]Davis MH, Hervais-Adelman A, Taylor K, McGettigan C, Johnsrude IS: Lexical information drives perceptual learning of distorted speech: evidence from the comprehension of noise-vocoded sentences. J Exp Psych General 2005, 134:222-241.
• [6]May P, Tiitinen H: Mismatch negativity (MMN), the deviance-elicited auditory deflection, explained. Psychophysiology 2010, 47:66-122.
• [7]Mäkelä AM, Alku P, Mäkinen V, Valtonen J, May PJC, Tiitinen H: Human cortical dynamics determined by speech fundamental frequency. Neuroimage 2002, 17:1300-1305.
• [8]Mäkelä AM, Alku P, May PJC, Mäkinen V, Tiitinen H: Left-hemispheric brain activity reflects formant transitions in speech sounds. Neuroreport 2005, 16:549-553.
• [9]Mäkelä AM, Alku P, Mäkinen V, Tiitinen H: Glides in speech fundamental frequency are reflected in the auditory N1m response. Neuroreport 2004, 15:1205-1208.
• [10]Gage NM, Roberts TP, Hickok G: Hemispheric asymmetries in auditory evoked neuromagnetic fields in response to place of articulation contrasts. Brain Res Cogn Brain Res 2002, 14:303-306.
• [11]Obleser J, Lahiri A, Eulitz C: Auditory-evoked magnetic field codes place of articulation in timing and topography around 100 milliseconds post syllable onset. Neuroimage 2003, 20:1839-1847.
• [12]Alku P, Sivonen P, Palomäki K, Tiitinen H: The periodic structure of vowel sounds is reflected in electromagnetic brain responses. Neurosci Lett 2001, 298:25-28.
• [13]Tiitinen H, Mäkelä AM, Mäkinen V, May PJC, Alku P: Disentangling the effects of phonation and articulation: Hemispheric asymmetries in the auditory N1m response of the human brain. BMC Neurosci 2005, 6:62-70. BioMed Central Full Text
• [14]Yrttiaho S, Tiitinen H, May PJC, Leino S, Alku P: Cortical sensitivity to periodicity of speech sounds. J Acoust Soc Am 2008, 123:2191-2199.
• [15]Yrttiaho S, Alku P, May PJC, Tiitinen H: Representation of the vocal roughness of aperiodic speech sounds in the auditory cortex. J Acoust Soc Am 2009, 125:3177-3185.
• [16]Obleser J, Scott SK, Eulitz C: Now you hear it, now you don't: transient traces of consonants and their nonspeech analogues in the human brain. Cereb Cortex 2006, 16:1069-1076.
• [17]Miettinen I, Tiitinen H, Alku P, May PJC: Sensitivity of the human auditory cortex to acoustic degradation of speech and non-speech sounds. BMC Neurosci 2010, 11:24. BioMed Central Full Text
• [18]Miettinen I, Alku P, Salminen N, May PJC, Tiitinen H: Responsiveness of the human auditory cortex to degraded speech sounds: reduction of amplitude resolution vs. additive noise. Brain Res 2011, 1367:298-309.
• [19]Miettinen I, Alku P, Yrttiaho S, May PJC, Tiitinen H: Cortical processing of degraded speech sounds: Effects of distortion type and continuity. Neuroimage 2012, 60:1036-1045.
• [20]Wessinger CM, VanMeter J, Tian B, Van Lare J, Pekar J, Rauschecker JP: Hierarchical organization of the human auditory cortex revealed by functional magnetic resonance imaging. J Cogn Neurosci 2001, 13:1-7.
• [21]Davis MH, Johnsrude IS: Hierarchical processing in spoken language comprehension. J Neurosci 2003, 23:3423-3431.
• [22]Giraud AL, Kell C, Thierfelder C, Sterzer P, Russ MO, Preibisch C, Kleinschmidt A: Contributions of sensory input, auditory search and verbal comprehension to cortical activity during speech processing. Cereb Cortex 2004, 14:247-255.
• [23]Narain C, Scott SK, Wise RJ, Rosen S, Leff A, Iversen SD, Matthews PM: Defining a left-lateralized response specific to intelligible speech using fMRI. Cereb Cortex 2003, 13:1362-1368.
• [24]Obleser J, Kotz SA: Expectancy constraints in degraded speech modulate the language comprehension network. Cereb Cortex 2010, 20:633-640.
• [25]Okada K, Rong F, Venezia J, Matchin W, Hsich I-H, Saberi K, Serrences JT, Hickok G: Hierarchical organization of human auditory cortex: Evidence from acoustic invariance in the response to intelligible speech. Cereb Cortex 2010, 20:2486-2495.
• [26]Scott SK, Blank CC, Rosen S, Wise RJS: Identification of a pathway for intelligible speech in the left temporal lobe. Brain 2000, 123:2400-2406.
• [27]Vouloumanos A, Kiehl KA, Werker JF, Liddle P: Detection of sounds in the auditory stream: event-related fMRI evidence for differential activation to speech and nonspeech. J Cogn Neurosci 2001, 13:994-1005.
• [28]Zekveld AA, Heslenfeld DJ, Festen JM, Schoonhoven R: Top-down and bottom-up processes in speech comprehension. Neuroimage 2006, 32:1826-1836.
• [29]Binder JR, Frost JA, Hammeke TA, Bellgowan PS, Springer JA, Kaufman JN, Possing ET: Human temporal lobe activation by speech and nonspeech sounds. Cereb Cortex 2000, 10:512-528.
• [30]Wild CJ, Davis MH, Johnsrude IS: Human auditory cortex is sensitive to the perceived clarity of speech. Neuroimage 2012, 60:1490-1502.
• [31]Cattermole KW: Principles of pulse code modulation. London: Iliffe Books; 1969.
• [32]Kryter KD: Methods for the calculation and use of articulation index. J Acoust Soc Am 1962, 34:1689-1697.
• [33]Steeneken HJM, Houtgast T: A physical method for measuring speech-transmission quality. J Acoust Soc Am 1980, 67:318-326.
• [34]ANSI: Methods for calculation of the speech intelligibility index. S3.5-1997. New York: American National Standards Institute; 1997.
• [35]Loizou P, Kim G: Reasons why current speech-enhancement algorithms do not improve speech intelligibility and suggested solutions. IEEE Trans Audio Speech Lang Processing 2011, 19:47-56.
• [36]Hazan V, Simpson A: The effect of cue-enhancement on the intelligibility of nonsense word and sentence materials presented in noise. Speech Comm 1998, 24:211-226.
• [37]Hämäläinen M, Hari R, Ilmoniemi RJ, Knuutila J, Lounasmaa OV: Magnetoencephalography - theory, instrumentation, and applications to noninvasive studies of the working human brain. Rev Mod Phys 1993, 65:413-497.
• [38]Pascual-Marqui R: Standardized low-resolution brain electromagnetic tomography (sLORETA): technical details. Methods Find Exp Clin Pharmacol 2002, 24(Suppl D):5-12.
• [39]Hickok G, Poeppel D: The cortical organization of speech processing. Nat Rev Neurosci 2007, 8:393-402.
• [40]Rauschecker JP, Scott SK: Maps and streams in the auditory cortex: nonhuman primates illuminate human speech processing. Nat Neurosci 2009, 12:718-724.
• [41]Mai JK, Paxinos G, Voss T: Atlas of the human brain. 3rd edition. San Diego: Academic; 2007.
• [42]Hämäläinen M: MNE software User’s guide, Ver. 2.7. 2009. http://www.martinos.org/meg/manuals/MNE-manual-2.7.pdf webcite
• [43]Loizou PC, Dorman M, Poroy O, Spahr T: Speech recognition by normal-hearing and cochlear implant listeners as a function of intensity resolution. J Acoust Soc Am 2000, 108:2377-2387.
• [44]Tulving E, Schacter DL: Priming and human memory systems. Science 1990, 247:301-306.
• [45]Remez RE, Rubin PE, Pisoni DB, Carell TD: Speech perception without traditional speech cues. Science 1981, 212:947-950.
• [46]Obleser J, Kotz SA: Multiple brain signatures of integration in the comprehension of degraded speech. Neuroimage 2011, 55:713-723.
• [47]Sohoglu E, Peelle JE, Carlyon RP, Davis MH: Predictive top-down integration of prior knowledge during speech perception. J Neurosci 2012, 32:8443-8453.
• [48]Chakalov I, Draganova R, Wollbrink A, Preissl H, Pantev C: Modulations of neural activity in auditory streaming caused by spectral and temporal alternation in subsequent stimuli: a magnetoencephalographic study. BMC Neurosci 2012, 13:72. BioMed Central Full Text