Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39250485›Full record

ArticlePLoS computational biology2024

A comparison of EEG encoding models using audiovisual stimuli and their unimodal counterparts.

Maansi Desai, Alyssa M Field, Liberty S Hamilton

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS computational biology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. EEG of the Dancing Brain: Decoding Sensory, Motor, and Social Processes during Dyadic Dance.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2025
    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

3 authors.

Maansi DesaiDepartment of Speech, Language, and Hearing Sciences, Moody College of Communication, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas, United States of America.
Alyssa M FieldDepartment of Speech, Language, and Hearing Sciences, Moody College of Communication, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas, United States of America.
Liberty S HamiltonDepartment of Speech, Language, and Hearing Sciences, Moody College of Communication, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0003-0182-2500

Funding

Electrophysiological Approaches to Understanding Functional Organization of Speech in the BrainR01DC018579 · NIDCD · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN · PI HAMILTON, J LIBERTY S, HENRY, MAYA · 2021 to 2025
$2.9M
NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC018579
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Communication in the real world is inherently multimodal. When having a conversation, typically sighted and hearing people use both auditory and visual cues to understand one another. For example, objects may make sounds as they move in space, or we may use the movement of a person's mouth to better understand what they are saying in a noisy environment. Still, many neuroscience experiments rely on unimodal stimuli to understand encoding of sensory features in the brain. The extent to which visual information may influence encoding of auditory information and vice versa in natural environments is thus unclear. Here, we addressed this question by recording scalp electroencephalography (EEG) in 11 subjects as they listened to and watched movie trailers in audiovisual (AV), visual (V) only, and audio (A) only conditions. We then fit linear encoding models that described the relationship between the brain responses and the acoustic, phonetic, and visual information in the stimuli. We also compared whether auditory and visual feature tuning was the same when stimuli were presented in the original AV format versus when visual or auditory information was removed. In these stimuli, visual and auditory information was relatively uncorrelated, and included spoken narration over a scene as well as animated or live-action characters talking with and without their face visible. For this stimulus, we found that auditory feature tuning was similar in the AV and A-only conditions, and similarly, tuning for visual information was similar when stimuli were presented with the audio present (AV) and when the audio was removed (V only). In a cross prediction analysis, we investigated whether models trained on AV data predicted responses to A or V only test data similarly to models trained on unimodal data. Overall, prediction performance using AV training and V test sets was similar to using V training and V test sets, suggesting that the auditory information has a relatively smaller effect on EEG. In contrast, prediction performance using AV training and A only test set was slightly worse than using matching A only training and A only test sets. This suggests the visual information has a stronger influence on EEG, though this makes no qualitative difference in the derived feature tuning. In effect, our results show that researchers may benefit from the richness of multimodal datasets, which can then be used to answer more than one research question.

Indexed as

Acoustic StimulationAuditory PerceptionElectroencephalographyPhotic StimulationVisual PerceptionAdultBrainComputational BiologyFemaleHumansMaleModels, NeurologicalYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID39250485
PMCPMC11412666

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.