Observing mouth movements has strikingly effects on the perception of speech. Any mismatch between sound and mouth movements will result in listeners perceiving illusory consonants (McGurk effect), whereas matching mouth movements assist with the correct recognition of speech sounds. Recent neuroimaging studies have yielded evidence that the motor areas are involved in speech processing, yet their contributions to multisensory illusion remain unclear. Using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) in an event-related design, we aimed to identify the functional roles of the motor network in the occurrence of multisensory illusion in female and male brains. fMRI showed bilateral activation of the inferior frontal gyrus (IFG) in audiovisually incongruent trials. Activity in the left IFG was negatively correlated with occurrence of the McGurk effect. The effective connectivity between the left IFG and the bilateral precentral gyri was stronger in incongruent than in congruent trials. The McGurk effect was reduced in incongruent trials by applying single-pulse TMS to motor cortex (M1) lip areas, indicating that TMS facilitates the left IFG-precentral motor network to reduce the McGurk effect. TMS of the M1 lip areas was effective in reducing the McGurk effect within the specific temporal range from 100 ms before to 200 ms after the auditory onset, and TMS of the M1 foot area did not influence the McGurk effect, suggesting topographical specificity. These results provide direct evidence that the motor network makes specific temporal and topographical contributions to the processing of multisensory integration of speech to avoid illusion.

Background: Theta burst stimulation (TBS) and quadripulse stimulation (QPS) are known to induce synaptic plasticity in humans. There have been no head-to-head comparisons of the efficacy and variability between TBS and QPS. Objective: To compare the efficacy and interindividual variability between the original TBS and QPS protocols. We hypothesized that QPS would be more effective and less variable than TBS. Methods: Forty-six healthy subjects participated in this study. Thirty subjects participated in the main comparison experiment, and the other sixteen subjects participated in the experiment to obtain natural variation in motor-evoked potentials. The facilitatory effects were compared between intermittent TBS (iTBS) and QPS5, and the inhibitory effects were compared between continuous TBS (cTBS) and QPS50. The motor-evoked potential amplitudes elicited by transcranial magnetic stimulation over the primary motor cortex were measured before the intervention and every 5 min after the intervention for 1 h. To investigate the interindividual variability, the responder/nonresponder/opposite-responder rates were also analyzed. Results: The facilitatory effects of QPS5 were greater than those of iTBS, and the inhibitory effects of QPS50 were much stronger than those of cTBS. The responder rate of QPS was significantly higher than that of TBS. QPS had a smaller number of opposite responders than TBS. Conclusion: QPS is more effective and stable for synaptic plasticity induction than TBS.

No abstract