No abstract

Observing lip movements of a speaker is known to facilitate speech understanding, especially in challenging listening situations. Converging evidence from neuroscientific studies shows enhanced processing of audiovisual stimuli. However, the interindividual variability of this visual benefit and its consequences on behavior are unknown. Here, we analyzed source-localized magnetoencephalographic (MEG) responses from normal-hearing participants listening to audiovisual speech with or without an additional distractor speaker. Using temporal response functions (TRFs), we show that neural responses to lip movements are, in general, enhanced when speech is challenging. After conducting a crucial control for speech acoustics, we show that lip movements effectively contribute to higher neural speech tracking, particularly when a distractor speaker is present. However, the extent of this visual benefit varied greatly among participants. Probing the behavioral relevance, we show that individuals who benefit more from lip movement information in terms of neural speech tracking, show a stronger drop in performance and an increase in perceived difficulty when the mouth is occluded by a surgical face mask. By contrast, no effect was found when the mouth was not occluded. We provide novel insights on how the benefit of lip movements in terms of neural speech tracking varies among individuals. Furthermore, we reveal its behavioral relevance by demonstrating negative consequences for behavior when visual speech is absent. Our results also offer potential implications for future objective assessments of audiovisual speech perception.

Visual speech plays a powerful role in facilitating auditory speech processing and has been a publicly noticed topic with the wide usage of face masks during the Covid-19 pandemic. In a previous magnetoencephalography (MEG) study we showed that occluding the mouth area significantly impairs neural speech tracking. To rule out the possibility that this deterioration is due to degraded sound quality, in the present follow-up study, we presented participants with audiovisual (AV) and audio-only (A) speech. We further independently manipulated the trials by adding a face mask and a distractor speaker. Our results clearly show that face masks only affect speech tracking in AV conditions, not in A conditions. This shows that face masks indeed primarily impact speech processing by blocking visual speech and not by acoustic degradation. Furthermore, we observe differences in the speech features that are used for visual speech processing. On the one hand, processing in clear speech, but not in noisy speech, is profiting more from lexical unit features (phonemes and word onsets) hinting at improved phoneme discrimination. On the other hand, we observe an improvement in speech tracking driven by the modulations of the lip area in clear speech and conditions with a distractor speaker, which might aid by providing temporal cues for subsequent auditory processing. With this work, we highlight the effects of face masks in AV speech tracking and show two separate ways how visual speech might support successful speech processing.

Face masks have become a prevalent measure during the Covid-19 pandemic to counteract the transmission of SARS-CoV 2. An unintended 'side-effect' of face masks is their adverse influence on speech perception especially in challenging listening situations. So far, behavioural studies have not pinpointed exactly which feature(s) of speech processing face masks affect in such listening situations. We conducted an audiovisual (AV) multi-speaker experiment using naturalistic speech (i.e. an audiobook). In half of the trials, the target speaker wore a (surgical) face mask, while we measured the brain activity of normal hearing participants via magnetoencephalography (MEG). A decoding model on the clear AV speech (i.e. no additional speaker and target speaker not wearing a face mask) was trained and used to reconstruct crucial speech features in each condition. We found significant main effects of face masks on the reconstruction of acoustic features, such as the speech envelope and spectral speech features (i.e. pitch and formant frequencies), while reconstruction of higher level features of speech segmentation (phoneme and word onsets) were especially impaired through masks in difficult listening situations, i.e. when a distracting speaker was also presented. Our findings demonstrate the detrimental impact face masks have on listening and speech perception, thus extending previous behavioural results. Supporting the idea of visual facilitation of speech is the fact that we used surgical face masks in our study, which only show mild effects on speech acoustics. This idea is in line with recent research, also by our group, showing that visual cortical regions track spectral modulations. Since hearing impairment usually affects higher frequencies, the detrimental effect of face masks might pose a particular challenge for individuals who likely need the visual information about higher frequencies (e.g. formants) to compensate.