SLIDE 1
neurocognitive processing behavioral consequences physiological response acoustic challenge
e.g., pupil dilation, galvanic skin response, stress hormones…
Jonathan Peelle Department of Otolaryngology Washington University - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Jonathan Peelle Department of Otolaryngology Washington University - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Jonathan Peelle Department of Otolaryngology Washington University in Saint Louis Web: peellelab.org Twitter: @jpeelle listening effort neurocognitive behavioral processing consequences acoustic challenge e.g., pupil dilation,
SLIDE 2
SLIDE 3
“listening effort”
May identify mechanisms used by human listeners that may inform speech technology Outcome measure for assistive devices or interventions
Clinical fitting of hearing aids or cochlear implants Evaluating processing/stimulation algorithms
SLIDE 4
Methods
Experimental psychology (behavior, eyetracking) Structural MRI Functional MRI, optical imaging Electrophysiology (MEG/EEG/ECoG) Computational and modeling approaches
SLIDE 5
Peelle Lab Funding
Private Government
The Dana Foundation McDonnell Center for Systems Neuroscience “Pending” NIH (hopefully) (NIDCD, NINDS, NIA)
NIA (Murray Grossman, Penn): Age, hearing loss, MRI NIDCD (Kristin Van Engen, Wash U): Accented speech
SLIDE 6
Areas of our research
Cognitive aspects of speech comprehension Multisensory cues in speech comprehension Neural oscillations and temporal prediction
SLIDE 7
Sentence recognition task 32 sentences in quiet or multitalker babble (+15, +5 SNR) 64 sentences: “Did you hear this sentence before?” Memory worse for speech in noise than in quiet for both old and young adults
verbal short-term memory
SLIDE 8
Normal completely intelligible 16 channel completely intelligible 4 channel moderately intelligible unintelligible 4 channel rotated 1 channel unintelligible
SLIDE 9
100 50
16ch 4ch
*
Word report (% correct)
4ch rot 1ch Normal
*
Intelligible Moderately intelligible Unintelligible Unintelligible
SLIDE 10
Unprocessed > 1ch (unintelligible)
p < .05, corrected
unintelligible moderately intelligible highly intelligible
IFG pMTG
Brain activity
SLIDE 11
100 50
16ch
Word report (% correct)
Normal
Intelligible
Intelligibility is matched, but perceptual clarity (and thus listening effort) differ We predicted increased neural activity for the degraded speech (16 channel) compared to normal speech
SLIDE 12
16ch > Normal speech Early < Late
p < .05, corrected
SLIDE 13
p < .05, corrected
Hickok & Poeppel (2007) Rauschecker & Scott (2009) Peelle, Johnsrude, & Davis (2010)
SLIDE 14
Neural similarity (RSA)
Mur et al. (2013), Frontiers in Psychology
SLIDE 15
Areas for future research
Incorporation of “cognitive” measures into assistive device design and fitting Improving use of portable technology (e.g., smart phones) for speech processing
Speech modification (podcasts, radio, phone calls…) Assessment Auditory training
Focus on individual differences (e.g., understand what individual listeners’ brains are doing)
Data, theory, and modeling