Language: I see what you are saying
In the mid-1940s, the psychologist Alvin Liberman went to work with Franklin Cooper at the Haskins Laboratories in New Haven, Connecticut. He initially set out to create a device to turn printed letters into sounds so that blind people could ‘hear’ written texts (Liberman, 1996). His first foray involved shining a light through a slit onto the page in order to convert the lines of each letter into light and then into frequencies of sound. Liberman and colleagues reasoned that with enough training, blind users would be able to learn these arbitrary letter-sound pairs and so be able to understand the text.
The device was a spectacular failure: the users performed slowly and inaccurately. This led Liberman and colleagues to the realization that speech is not an arbitrary sequence of sounds, but a specific human code. They argued that the key to this code was the link between the speech sounds a person hears and the motor actions they make in order to speak. This important work led to decades of further research and helped lay the foundation for the psychological and neuroscientific study of speech.
When we watch and listen to someone speak, our brain combines the visual information of the movement of the speaker’s mouth with the speech sounds that are produced by this movement (McGurk and MacDonald, 1976). One of the core problems that researchers in this field are investigating is how these different sets of information are integrated to allow us to understand speech. Now, in eLife, Hyojin Park, Christoph Kayser, Gregor Thut and Joachim Gross of the University of Glasgow report that they have studied this integration by using a technique called magnetoencephalography to record the magnetic fields that are generated by the electrical currents of the brain (Park et al., 2016).
Park et al. presented volunteers with audio-visual clips of naturalistic speech and then asked them to complete a short questionnaire about the speech they heard and saw. In some cases, these clips were manipulated so that the audio did not match the video. In other cases, Park et al. presented a different speech signal to each ear and asked the volunteers to pay attention to just one signal. By analyzing these combinations, they could separate the brain activity that is associated with watching someone speak from the activity that processes the speech sounds themselves.
Park et al. found that a part of the continuous speech stream called the envelope, which is the slow rising and falling in the amplitude of the speech, was tracked in auditory areas of the brain (Figure 1). Conversely, the visual cortex tracked mouth movements. These results are a good replication and extension of previous data recorded from both the auditory domain (Cogan and Poeppel, 2011; Gross et al., 2013; Luo and Poeppel, 2007) and the visual domain (Luo et al., 2010; Zion Golumbic et al., 2013). However, Park et al. extended these findings by asking: what role does tracking the lip movements of a speaker play in speech perception?
To learn more about which parts of the brain track the lip movements of the speaker, Park et al. performed a partial regression on the lip movement, envelope and brain activity data to remove the response to sound and focus on just the effect of tracking the lip movements. This revealed two areas of the brain that actively track lip movements during speech. The first area, as found by previous researchers, was the visual cortex. This presumably tracks the lips as a visual signal. The second area was the left motor cortex.
To further establish the role of the motor cortex during speech perception, Park et al. examined the comprehension scores from the questionnaire. These scores could be predicted from the extent to which neural activity in the motor cortex synchronized with the lip movements observed by the participant: higher scores correlated with a higher degree of synchronization. This suggests that the ability of the motor cortex to track lip movements is important for understanding audiovisual speech, suggesting a new role for the motor system in speech perception. Park et al. interpret this finding to suggest that the motor system helps to predict the upcoming sound signal by simulating the speaker’s intended mouth movement (Arnal and Giraud, 2012; Figure 1).
While this is an important first step, it is still not clear how the lip movement tracked by the motor cortex is integrated with the response of auditory regions of the brain to speech sounds. Are mouth movements tracked specifically for ambiguous or difficult stimuli (Du et al., 2014) or is this tracking necessary for perceiving speech generally? Future work will hopefully clarify the specifics of this mechanism.
It is interesting and somewhat ironic that the motor cortex tracks the visual signals of mouth movement, given the early (and unsuccessful) efforts of Liberman and colleagues to help the blind ‘hear’ written texts. Indeed, just as these early researchers proposed, it seems that the link between the motor and auditory system is a key to understanding how speech is represented in the brain.
References
-
Cortical oscillations and sensory predictionsTrends in Cognitive Sciences 16:390–398.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2012.05.003
-
A mutual information analysis of neural coding of speech by low-frequency MEG phase informationJournal of Neurophysiology 106:554–563.https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00075.2011
-
Noise differentially impacts phoneme representations in the auditory and speech motor systemsProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 111:7126–7131.https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1318738111
-
Visual input enhances selective speech envelope tracking in auditory cortex at a "cocktail party"Journal of Neuroscience 33:1417–1426.https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3675-12.2013
Article and author information
Author details
Publication history
Copyright
© 2016, Cogan
This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.
Metrics
-
- 1,594
- views
-
- 131
- downloads
-
- 0
- citations
Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.
Download links
Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)
Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)
Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)
Further reading
-
- Neuroscience
Perceptual systems heavily rely on prior knowledge and predictions to make sense of the environment. Predictions can originate from multiple sources of information, including contextual short-term priors, based on isolated temporal situations, and context-independent long-term priors, arising from extended exposure to statistical regularities. While the effects of short-term predictions on auditory perception have been well-documented, how long-term predictions shape early auditory processing is poorly understood. To address this, we recorded magnetoencephalography data from native speakers of two languages with different word orders (Spanish: functor-initial vs Basque: functor-final) listening to simple sequences of binary sounds alternating in duration with occasional omissions. We hypothesized that, together with contextual transition probabilities, the auditory system uses the characteristic prosodic cues (duration) associated with the native language’s word order as an internal model to generate long-term predictions about incoming non-linguistic sounds. Consistent with our hypothesis, we found that the amplitude of the mismatch negativity elicited by sound omissions varied orthogonally depending on the speaker’s linguistic background and was most pronounced in the left auditory cortex. Importantly, listening to binary sounds alternating in pitch instead of duration did not yield group differences, confirming that the above results were driven by the hypothesized long-term ‘duration’ prior. These findings show that experience with a given language can shape a fundamental aspect of human perception – the neural processing of rhythmic sounds – and provides direct evidence for a long-term predictive coding system in the auditory cortex that uses auditory schemes learned over a lifetime to process incoming sound sequences.
-
- Cell Biology
- Neuroscience
Reactive astrocytes play critical roles in the occurrence of various neurological diseases such as multiple sclerosis. Activation of astrocytes is often accompanied by a glycolysis-dominant metabolic switch. However, the role and molecular mechanism of metabolic reprogramming in activation of astrocytes have not been clarified. Here, we found that PKM2, a rate-limiting enzyme of glycolysis, displayed nuclear translocation in astrocytes of EAE (experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis) mice, an animal model of multiple sclerosis. Prevention of PKM2 nuclear import by DASA-58 significantly reduced the activation of mice primary astrocytes, which was observed by decreased proliferation, glycolysis and secretion of inflammatory cytokines. Most importantly, we identified the ubiquitination-mediated regulation of PKM2 nuclear import by ubiquitin ligase TRIM21. TRIM21 interacted with PKM2, promoted its nuclear translocation and stimulated its nuclear activity to phosphorylate STAT3, NF-κB and interact with c-myc. Further single-cell RNA sequencing and immunofluorescence staining demonstrated that TRIM21 expression was upregulated in astrocytes of EAE. TRIM21 overexpressing in mice primary astrocytes enhanced PKM2-dependent glycolysis and proliferation, which could be reversed by DASA-58. Moreover, intracerebroventricular injection of a lentiviral vector to knockdown TRIM21 in astrocytes or intraperitoneal injection of TEPP-46, which inhibit the nuclear translocation of PKM2, effectively decreased disease severity, CNS inflammation and demyelination in EAE. Collectively, our study provides novel insights into the pathological function of nuclear glycolytic enzyme PKM2 and ubiquitination-mediated regulatory mechanism that are involved in astrocyte activation. Targeting this axis may be a potential therapeutic strategy for the treatment of astrocyte-involved neurological disease.