The Cross-Modal Suppressive Role of Visual Context on Speech Intelligibility: An ERP Study

Shen, Stanley; Kerlin, Jess R.; Bortfeld, Heather; Shahin, Antoine J.

doi:10.3390/brainsci10110810

Cited by 4 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although observed in the TEP, vertex N100‐P200 complexes with similar/matching time course of peak latencies and similar source activations have been more rigorously examined and described in response to sensory stimuli other than the TMS “click” sound. Many of these studies describe multisensory or cross‐modal impacts on the vertex N100‐P200 (Shahin, 2019 ; Shahin et al, 2018 ; Shen et al, 2020 ), suggesting that it is not modality specific and instead largely determined by the intrinsic saliency of the stimulus and its task relevance (Mouraux et al, 2011 ; Novembre et al, 2019 ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Experimental suppression of transcranial magnetic stimulation‐electroencephalography sensory potentials

Ross

Sarkar

Keller

2022

Human Brain Mapping

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The sensory experience of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) evokes cortical responses measured in electroencephalography (EEG) that confound interpretation of TMS-evoked potentials (TEPs). Methods for sensory masking have been proposed to minimize sensory contributions to the TEP, but the most effective combination for suprathreshold TMS to dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (dlPFC) is unknown. We applied sensory suppression techniques and quantified electrophysiology and perception from suprathreshold dlPFC TMS to identify the best combination to minimize the sensory TEP. In 21 healthy adults, we applied single pulse TMS at 120% resting motor threshold (rMT) to the left dlPFC and compared EEG vertex N100-P200 and perception. Conditions included three protocols: No masking (no auditory masking, no foam, and jittered interstimulus interval [ISI]), Standard masking (auditory noise, foam, and jittered ISI), and our ATTENUATE protocol (auditory noise, foam, over-the-ear protection, and unjittered ISI). ATTENUATE reduced vertex N100-P200 by 56%, "click" loudness perception by 50%, and scalp sensation by 36%. We show that sensory prediction, induced with predictable ISI, has a suppressive effect on vertex N100-P200, and that combining standard suppression protocols with sensory prediction provides the best N100-P200 suppression. ATTENUATE was more effective than Standard masking, which only reduced vertex N100-P200 by 22%, loudness by 27%, and scalp sensation by 24%. We introduce a sensory suppression protocol superior to Standard masking and demonstrate that using an unjittered ISI can contribute to minimizing sensory confounds. ATTENUATE provides superior sensory suppression to increase TEP signal-to-noise and contributes to a growing understanding of TMS-EEG sensory neuroscience.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Experimental suppression of transcranial magnetic stimulation‐electroencephalography sensory potentials

Ross

Sarkar

Keller

2022

Human Brain Mapping

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Importantly, although AEP was identified using strict criteria based on the TMS-EEG and auditory perception literature, it is likely the AEP described is not well characterized as purely auditory in nature. In fact, somatosensory 19 and multimodal [41][42][43] perception can evoke a central N100-P200 complex, sometimes referred to as the vertex potential (VP). The VP is susceptible to perceived saliency and attention 19 , illusory perception 41 , and can induce modulation of motor excitability 20 .…”

Section: Site-specificity Of Tms-evoked Potentials and Other Modulate...mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It has been suggested this could be due to contrasting acoustic properties of the TMS click and sustained noise 40 . Perhaps critical to the discussion, a sensory potential with identical time course and topography has been described with somatosensory 19 and multimodal 41 – 43 perception, so there may be contributions to the AEP that cannot be masked with an auditory sound. In addition, it is unknown what effects noise masking sounds have on the TEP.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A structured ICA-based process for removing auditory evoked potentials

Ross

Ozdemir

Lian

et al. 2022

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS)-evoked potentials (TEPs), recorded using electroencephalography (EEG), reflect a combination of TMS-induced cortical activity and multi-sensory responses to TMS. The auditory evoked potential (AEP) is a high-amplitude sensory potential—evoked by the “click” sound produced by every TMS pulse—that can dominate the TEP and obscure observation of other neural components. The AEP is peripherally evoked and therefore should not be stimulation site specific. We address the problem of disentangling the peripherally evoked AEP of the TEP from components evoked by cortical stimulation and ask whether removal of AEP enables more accurate isolation of TEP. We hypothesized that isolation of the AEP using Independent Components Analysis (ICA) would reveal features that are stimulation site specific and unique individual features. In order to improve the effectiveness of ICA for removal of AEP from the TEP, and thus more clearly separate the transcranial-evoked and non-specific TMS-modulated potentials, we merged sham and active TMS datasets representing multiple stimulation conditions, removed the resulting AEP component, and evaluated performance across different sham protocols and clinical populations using reduction in Global and Local Mean Field Power (GMFP/LMFP) and cosine similarity analysis. We show that removing AEPs significantly reduced GMFP and LMFP in the post-stimulation TEP (14 to 400 ms), driven by time windows consistent with the N100 and P200 temporal characteristics of AEPs. Cosine similarity analysis supports that removing AEPs reduces TEP similarity between subjects and reduces TEP similarity between stimulation conditions. Similarity is reduced most in a mid-latency window consistent with the N100 time-course, but nevertheless remains high in this time window. Residual TEP in this window has a time-course and topography unique from AEPs, which follow-up exploratory analyses suggest could be a modulation in the alpha band that is not stimulation site specific but is unique to individual subject. We show, using two datasets and two implementations of sham, evidence in cortical topography, TEP time-course, GMFP/LMFP and cosine similarity analyses that this procedure is effective and conservative in removing the AEP from TEP, and may thus better isolate TMS-evoked activity. We show TEP remaining in early, mid and late latencies. The early response is site and subject specific. Later response may be consistent with TMS-modulated alpha activity that is not site specific but is unique to the individual. TEP remaining after removal of AEP is unique and can provide insight into TMS-evoked potentials and other modulated oscillatory dynamics.

show abstract

“…The video was cropped below the eyes showing only the nose, lips, and chin. The same set of stimuli were used in a previous study examining audiovisual integration and event-related potentials 35 . Stimulus presentation was followed by a fillable textbox where participants were asked to type the perceived word and indicate the confidence of their response on scale of 1 (“not confident at all”) to 10 (“absolutely confident”).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evidence of visual crossmodal reorganization positively relates to speech outcomes in cochlear implant users

Paul

Bajin

Uzelac

et al. 2022

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Deaf individuals who use a cochlear implant (CI) have remarkably different outcomes for auditory speech communication ability. One factor assumed to affect CI outcomes is visual crossmodal plasticity in auditory cortex, where deprived auditory regions begin to support non-auditory functions such as vision. Previous research has viewed crossmodal plasticity as harmful for speech outcomes for CI users if it interferes with sound processing, while others have demonstrated that plasticity related to visual language may be beneficial for speech recovery. To clarify, we used electroencephalography (EEG) to measure brain responses to a partial face speaking a silent single-syllable word (visual language) in 15 CI users and 13 age-matched typical-hearing controls. We used source analysis on EEG activity to measure crossmodal visual responses in auditory cortex and then compared them to CI users’ speech-in-noise listening ability. CI users’ brain response to the onset of the video stimulus (face) was larger than controls in left auditory cortex, consistent with crossmodal activation after deafness. CI users also produced a mixture of alpha (8–12 Hz) synchronization and desynchronization in auditory cortex while watching lip movement while controls instead showed desynchronization. CI users with higher speech scores had stronger crossmodal responses in auditory cortex to the onset of the video, but those with lower speech scores had increases in alpha power during lip movement in auditory areas. Therefore, evidence of crossmodal reorganization in CI users does not necessarily predict poor speech outcomes, and differences in crossmodal activation during lip reading may instead relate to strategies or differences that CI users use in audiovisual speech communication.

show abstract

The Cross-Modal Suppressive Role of Visual Context on Speech Intelligibility: An ERP Study

Cited by 4 publications

References 35 publications

Experimental suppression of transcranial magnetic stimulation‐electroencephalography sensory potentials

Experimental suppression of transcranial magnetic stimulation‐electroencephalography sensory potentials

A structured ICA-based process for removing auditory evoked potentials

Evidence of visual crossmodal reorganization positively relates to speech outcomes in cochlear implant users

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About