2010年14月2日,星期二

有关清晰度的更多信息:Jonathan Peelle的来宾帖子

乔纳森·皮尔(Jonathan Peelle)的来宾帖子:

在SfN纳米研讨会上肯定有很多有趣的话题,这些话题表明我认为我们应该更经常地做这种事情。

The study of intelligible 言语 has a long history in neuroimaging. On the one hand, as Greg and others have emphasized, it is a tricky thing to study, because a number of linguistic (and often acoustic) factors are confounded when looking 在 intelligible > 难以理解 contrasts. So once we identify intelligibility-responsive areas, we still have a lot of work to do in order to relate anatomy to cognitive operations involved in 言语 comprehension. That being said, it does seem like a good place to start, and 试图将与语言相关的处理与听觉/声学处理分离的合理方法。 Depending on the approach used, intelligibility studies can also tell us a great deal about 言语 comprehension under challenging conditions (e.g. background noise, cochlear implants, hearing loss) that have both theoretical and practical relevance.

我怀疑每个人都同意的一件事是,归根结底,我们应该能够说明多种证据来源:病变,PET,fMRI,EEG / MEG,以及刺激和分析方法的各种效果。考虑到这一点,在此讨论中添加了一些评论。

关于冈田等。 (2010),我赢了’t重复我们先前提出的所有观点(Peelle等,2010a),但是背景噪声(连续扫描)的影响不应该’不可低估。如果背景噪声只是增加了全局脑信号(即增益增加),则不应’影响了结果。但是背景噪声会与行为因素相互作用,并导致单变量信号增加的空间受限模式(包括左侧颞叶皮质,例如Peelle等人2010b):




因此,在没有数据的情况下,我不愿意假设背景噪音和聆听努力不会 ’t影响多元结果。与此相符的是,即使两种类型的刺激是可理解的,它们的听觉努力也会有所不同,这将影响参与理解的神经系统。在冈田等。 (2010年),这意味着一个区分清晰和声码条件的区域可能显示出声音敏感度(由Okada等人提出),或者可能是在索引聆听努力。

值得强调的另一点是,尽管Scott等人介绍了这些材料。 (2000年)具有许多优点,并已在许多论文中使用,有许多方法来研究清晰度的反应,我们应注意不要从单一方法中得出太多结论。正如我们已经指出的那样,Davis和Johnsrude(2003)在三种类型的声降解中参数地改变了清晰度,并在左半球的主听觉区的前部和后部以及右主听觉皮层的前部发现了对声音不敏感的区域半球。



One advantage to this approach is that parametrically varying 言语 clarity may give a more sensitive way to assess intelligibility responses than a dichotomous “intelligible > 难以理解” contrast. The larger point is that multivariate analyses, although extremely useful, are not a magic bullet; we also need to carefully consider the particular stimuli and task used (which I would argue also includes background noise).

Incidentally, in Davis and Johnsrude (2003), responses that are increased when 言语 is distorted (aka listening effort) look like this (i.e. including regions of temporal cortex):





The role of inferotemporal cortex in 言语 comprehension

在座谈会上讨论的一个方面是后下颞回/梭形的作用,出现在希科克& Poeppel model;我认为最初的观点是,在功能影像学研究中并不一致,Greg回答说,对该区域的主要支持是病变数据。它’是的,下颞叶皮质的这个区域是’在功能影像学研究中经常讨论,但实际上它经常发生—通常,我会说功能成像的重要性非常强。我们在Peelle等人中简要回顾了其中一些证据。 (2010b; p。1416,底部),但其中包括以下研究:



说到颞下皮质,冈田等人在这里有一个不错的高峰。结果(图2,表1):



一旦开始寻找它,它就会经常出现。 (尽管’还要注意的是,在功能磁共振成像研究中该区域缺乏结果可能是由于该区域的易感伪影,而不是由于缺乏神经参与所致。)

前路与后路:单词还是句子?

关于后颞区和前颞区对于语音理解至关重要的讨论,令我惊讶的是,我们都需要对术语保持谨慎。即是“speech” refer to connected 言语 (sentences) or single words? One explanation of the lesion data referred to in which a patient with severe left anterior temporal damage performed well on “speech perception” is that the task was auditory word comprehension. How did this patient do on sentence comprehension measures? I think a compelling case could be made that auditory word comprehension is largely bilateral and more posterior, but that in connected 言语 more anterior (and perhaps left-lateralized) regions become more critical (e.g., Humphries et al., 2006):



据我所知,没有人像许多句子一样对单个单词的清晰度进行功能成像。左前颞叶损伤患者也没有判刑措施。因此,在这一点上,我认为在我们可以直接比较这些证据来源之前,需要做更多的工作。

大致而言,我不’不知道指定哪个区域响应将有多大的生产力“most” to intelligible 言语. Given the variety of challenges which our auditory and language systems need to deal with, surely it comes down to a network of regions that are dynamically called into action depending on (acoustic and cognitive) task demands. This is why I think that we need to include regions of prefrontal, premotor, and inferotemporal cortex in these discussions, even if they don’t出现在每个成像对比度中。




参考文献:

Awad M, Warren JE, Scott SK, Turkheimer FE, Wise RJS (2007) A common system for the comprehension and production of narrative 言语. Journal of Neuroscience 27:11455-11464. http://dx.doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5257-06.2007

戴维斯·MH(Davis MH),约翰斯鲁德(Johnsrude IS)(2003)口头语言理解中的分层处理。神经科学杂志23:3423-3431。 http://www.jneurosci.org/cgi/content/abstract/23/8/3423

Humphries C,Binder JR,Medler DA,Liebenthal E(2006)听觉句子理解过程中神经活动的句法和语义调节。认知神经科学杂志18:665-679。 http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2006.18.4.665

Okada K, Rong F, Venezia J, Matchin W, Hsieh I-H, Saberi K, Serences JT, Hickok G (2010) Hierarchical organization of human auditory cortex: Evidence from acoustic invariance in the response to intelligible 言语. Cerebral Cortex 20:2486-2495. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhp318

Orfanidou E,Marslen-Wilson WD,Davis MH(2006),神经反应抑制可预测口语单词和伪单词的重复启动。认知神经科学杂志18:1237-1252。 http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2006.18.8.1237

Peelle JE, Johnsrude IS, Davis MH (2010a) Hierarchical processing for 言语 in human auditory cortex and beyond [Commentary on Okada et al. (2010)]. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 4: 51. http://frontiersin.org/Human_Neuroscience/10.3389/fnhum.2010.00051/full

Peelle JE, Eason RJ, Schmitter S, Schwarzbauer C, Davis MH (2010b) Evaluating an acoustically quiet EPI sequence for use in fMRI studies of 言语 and auditory processing. NeuroImage 52: 1410–1419. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.05.015

Rodd JM, Davis MH, Johnsrude IS (2005) The neural mechanisms of 言语 comprehension: fMRI studies of semantic ambiguity. Cerebral Cortex 15:1261-1269. http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1093/cercor/bhi009

Rodd JM,Longe OA,Randall B,Tyler LK(2010)时空语言系统的功能组织:来自句法和语义歧义的证据。神经心理疾病48:1324-1335。 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2009.12.035

Scott SK, Blank CC, Rosen S, Wise RJS (2000) Identification of a pathway for intelligible 言语 in the left temporal lobe. Brain 123:2400-2406. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/brain/123.12.2400

5条评论:

格雷格希科克 说过...

感谢您的精彩文章Jonathan。让'从您开始的假设开始,谈论您提出的一些观点...

您声明识别清晰度响应区域是"试图将与语言相关的处理与听觉/声学处理分离的合理方法。"

这是我的主要原因'm not fond of 智力与非智力 contrasts: because I think they largely subtract out auditory/acoustic processing where a whole bunch of really important stuff is happening, especially for 言语/phonological perception.

这里'有一些问题需要讨论:

是否可以根据某些高级声学特征对语音信息进行处理/编码?

If so, then is it possible that rotated 言语, which contains many of the same features (by design) will also robustly activate phonological systems?

请注意,这解释了为什么前部区域(非语音区域)对清晰度的反应最强。

不't it then follow that intelligibility contrasts miss a whole lot of what we are trying to understand in terms of 言语 perception?

我知道你不'不一定同意:我的前后主张,但我认为有必要明确说明哪些过程* aren't *可能在清晰度响应区域的分布中。

乔纳森·皮尔 说过...

一般来说我'm sympathetic to this line of thought...I think we always have to be careful about what we are comparing, and that it could well be that the acoustic information preserved in 难以理解 言语 conditions activates 言语y (phonological, say, but in principle other processes) regions of the brain. Intuitively I think this would be more of an issue for rotated normal 言语 (as opposed to rotated vocoded 言语), but I also think that I would rather trust data than intuition. It'值得调查。

冒着听起来像是唱片破损的风险,我还要指出,有多种方法来构造清晰度操作。当然,我们需要小心所有这些方面的潜在混杂因素。但是,例如,戴维斯中的清晰度&Johnsrude(2003)在颞叶皮质的中部和后部(除了前部区域)具有相当强的激活作用。因此,冒着陷入具体定义的风险,我认为有不同类型的"intell vs. unintell"对比,并且这可能很重要。

话虽如此,我完全同意这将有助于阐明什么是流程,什么是流程。'可能通过比较这些条件以及什么类型的声学/语音过程来定义"unintelligible" (or less-intelligible) 言语 might engage.

说到澄清,关于前后区别:您认为可以通过指定单词/句子来解决任何区别吗?您对前颞叶损伤患者在句子理解任务上有何感觉?

格雷格希科克 说过...

So we seem to agree that despite the findings coming out of the Scott/Wise group, posterior regions may still likely be an important site for phonological processing. I agree that not all forms of 难以理解 言语 are equal, and the Davis and Johnsrude finding of posterior activation (similar to Okada et al.) is consistent with this. Sophie's小组会争辩说,仅当理解变得费力时,后激活才会出现。

是的,比较单词和句子是帮助解决此问题的一件好事。我们'进行了这项研究。我们发现,与旋转句子相比,ATL区域对句子的激活要比加扰句子更多。但是,与旋转的加扰句子相比,加扰的句子仍会激活ATL,只是不如普通句子那么多。因此,根据您的观点,您可以将此结果解释为ATL的证据'在句子处理中的作用(句子>加扰的句子)或ATL's role in intelligible 言语 (scrambled sentences >旋转的加扰句子)。

正如您所注意到的,病变数据可能在分类方面更有用。如您所知,我们的ATL损伤患者在音节辨别和单词理解任务上达到了上限。使用语义可逆的主动,被动,主语和宾语相对词进行句子与图片匹配评估的句子理解对于该患者而言存在更多问题,表现在85%的范围内。

格雷格希科克 说过...

关于听的努力可能解释Okada等人的观点。您说的是多元结果"

"在冈田等。 (2010年),这意味着一个区分清晰和声码条件的区域可能显示出声音敏感度(由Okada等人提出),或者可能是在索引聆听努力。"

I will admit that this is a possibility. However, this account has to make the assumption that listening effort modulates not only the amplitude of the activation but the pattern across voxels. Further, and more importantly, this explanation would only apply to *anterior* temporal regions which significantly classified clear vs. vocoded 言语. The posterior STS did not classify clear vs. vocoded 言语 but did classify clear vs. rotated, so listening effort doesn'似乎无法解释结果的模式。

马克 说过...

关于您提到的颞下区域:令我惊讶的是,这一活动可能与人们在阅读研究中观察到的单词选择性中梭形激活相对应(有人称其为'visual wordform area')。在不研究VWFA辩论的复杂性的情况下,似乎确实如此,因为有识字的人会自动拼字激活,因此该区域也可以激活听觉单词。

例如,最近的一篇论文Desroches等。 (2010)研究了阅读障碍儿童与典型读者的听音韵律检测。他们发现对照儿童的颞/梭形激活较差,但阅读障碍儿童则没有。

The idea of obligatory activation during 言语 processing is not new. It dates back 在 the very least to work by Seidenberg &Tanenhaus(1979),他发现听觉韵律的判断受拼字法一致性的影响。

只能说:那里's a long list of ways in which intelligible 言语 can be different from 难以理解 言语. I would add to that list the fact that intelligible 言语 (including phonetically valid nonwords) tends to activate orthographic representations.

Desroches,A.S.,Cone,N.E.,Bolger,D.J.,Bitan,T.,Burman,D.D.,&Booth,J.R.(2010)有阅读困难的儿童在口语处理过程中显示出与拼字处理相关的大脑区域差异。脑研究,1356,73-84

Seidenberg,M.,Tanenhaus,M.,1979年。正字法对韵律监控的影响。 J. Exp。 Psychol。哼。学习。嗯5(6),546–554.