Audiovisual Speech Integration Does Not Rely on the Motor System: Evidence from Articulatory Suppression, the McGurk Effect, and fMRI

William Matchin · Kier Groulx · Gregory S. Hickok

51 citations0/0 files storedJournal of Cognitive Neuroscience

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Multisensory perception and integration Speech and Audio Processing Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism

Abstract

Visual speech influences the perception of heard speech. A classic example of this is the McGurk effect, whereby an auditory /pa/ overlaid onto a visual /ka/ induces the fusion percept of /ta/. Recent behavioral and neuroimaging research has highlighted the importance of both articulatory representations and motor speech regions of the brain, particularly Broca's area, in audiovisual (AV) speech integration. Alternatively, AV speech integration may be accomplished by the sensory system through multisensory integration in the posterior STS. We assessed the claims regarding the involvement of the motor system in AV integration in two experiments: (i) examining the effect of articulatory suppression on the McGurk effect and (ii) determining if motor speech regions show an AV integration profile. The hypothesis regarding experiment (i) is that if the motor system plays a role in McGurk fusion, distracting the motor system through articulatory suppression should result in a reduction of McGurk fusion. The results of experiment (i) showed that articulatory suppression results in no such reduction, suggesting that the motor system is not responsible for the McGurk effect. The hypothesis of experiment (ii) was that if the brain activation to AV speech in motor regions (such as Broca's area) reflects AV integration, the profile of activity should reflect AV integration: AV > AO (auditory only) and AV > VO (visual only). The results of experiment (ii) demonstrate that motor speech regions do not show this integration profile, whereas the posterior STS does. Instead, activity in motor regions is task dependent. The combined results suggest that AV speech integration does not rely on the motor system.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 51 citations exist upstream.

References

1976Hearing lips and seeing voices 1985The motor theory of speech perception revised 1982Insula of the old world monkey. III: Efferent cortical output and comments on function 2000Evidence from functional magnetic resonance imaging of crossmodal binding in the human heteromodal cortex 2004Integration of Auditory and Visual Information about Objects in Superior Temporal Sulcus 2003Seeing and hearing speech excites the motor system involved in speech production 2004Unraveling multisensory integration: patchy organization within human STS multisensory cortex 2011Speech Production as State Feedback Control

Cited by

2018Neural networks supporting audiovisual integration for speech: A large-scale lesion study 2017Audiovisual integration as conflict resolution: The conflict of the McGurk illusion

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.