Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24996043›Full record

SynthesisHuman brain mapping2014

An ALE meta-analysis on the audiovisual integration of speech signals.

Laura C Erickson, Elizabeth Heeg, Josef P Rauschecker, Peter E Turkeltaub

Abstract readMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Human brain mapping, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Benefit of visual speech information for word comprehension in post-stroke aphasia.Cortex; a journal devoted to the study of the nervous system and behavior · 2023
    Article
  7. Increased Connectivity among Sensory and Motor Regions during Visual and Audiovisual Speech Perception.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2022
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Neural mechanisms of eye contact when listening to another person talking.Social cognitive and affective neuroscience · 2017
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Prediction and constraint in audiovisual speech perception.Cortex; a journal devoted to the study of the nervous system and behavior · 2015
    Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Laura C EricksonDepartment of Neurology, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, District of Columbia; Department of Neuroscience, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, District of Columbia.
Elizabeth Heeg
Josef P Rauschecker
Peter E Turkeltaub

Funding

Georgetown-Howard Universities Center for Clinical and Translational Science (GHUUL1TR000101 · NCATS · GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY · PI MELLMAN, THOMAS A, VERBALIS, JOSEPH G · 2012 to 2015
$19.3M
Predoctoral Training in Intergrative NeuroscienceT32NS041231 · NINDS · GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY · PI Ludise Malkova, Ashley S VanMeter · 2001 to 2026
$6.8M
Sensory cortical organization and cross-modal plasticity in blind subjectsR01EY018923 · NEI · GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY · PI RAUSCHECKER, JOSEF P · 2009 to 2016
$2.4M
Georgetown-Howard Universities Center for Clinical and Translational Science (GHUKL2TR000102 · NCATS · GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY · PI MELLMAN, THOMAS A, VERBALIS, JOSEPH G · 2012 to 2014
$1.7M
NCATS NIH HHS KL2 TR000102NCATS NIH HHS KL2TR000102NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR000101NEI NIH HHS R01 EY018923NEI NIH HHS R01EY018923NINDS NIH HHS T32 NS041231
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The brain improves speech processing through the integration of audiovisual (AV) signals. Situations involving AV speech integration may be crudely dichotomized into those where auditory and visual inputs contain (1) equivalent, complementary signals (validating AV speech) or (2) inconsistent, different signals (conflicting AV speech). This simple framework may allow the systematic examination of broad commonalities and differences between AV neural processes engaged by various experimental paradigms frequently used to study AV speech integration. We conducted an activation likelihood estimation metaanalysis of 22 functional imaging studies comprising 33 experiments, 311 subjects, and 347 foci examining "conflicting" versus "validating" AV speech. Experimental paradigms included content congruency, timing synchrony, and perceptual measures, such as the McGurk effect or synchrony judgments, across AV speech stimulus types (sublexical to sentence). Colocalization of conflicting AV speech experiments revealed consistency across at least two contrast types (e.g., synchrony and congruency) in a network of dorsal stream regions in the frontal, parietal, and temporal lobes. There was consistency across all contrast types (synchrony, congruency, and percept) in the bilateral posterior superior/middle temporal cortex. Although fewer studies were available, validating AV speech experiments were localized to other regions, such as ventral stream visual areas in the occipital and inferior temporal cortex. These results suggest that while equivalent, complementary AV speech signals may evoke activity in regions related to the corroboration of sensory input, conflicting AV speech signals recruit widespread dorsal stream areas likely involved in the resolution of conflicting sensory signals.

Indexed as

Brain MappingLanguageAcoustic StimulationAuditory PerceptionBrainDatabases, FactualHumansNeuroimagingPhotic StimulationVisual Perceptionactivation likelihood estimationasynchronousauditory dorsal streamcross-modal; languageincongruentinferior frontal gyrusmultisensorysuperior temporal sulcus

Identifiers

PMID24996043
PMCPMC4206592

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.