ライフサイエンスコーパス: speech

1 domains, especially using images, text, and speech.

2 tical representation of concomitant auditory speech.

3 rehend, unlike auditory-only and audiovisual speech.

4 on appear to manifest in multiple domains of speech.

5 the face to recover vocal tract shape during speech.

6 ter listeners acquired knowledge of incoming speech.

7 e is feasible to capture vital properties of speech.

8 s of auditory information provided by visual speech.

9 of behavioral effects of ignored background speech.

10 nto syntactic structure to produce connected speech.

11 ixture, even if they occurred in the ignored speech.

12 from the changing shape of the mouth during speech.

13 underlying the construction of intelligible speech.

14 riants in nine patients with ASD and lack of speech.

15 presence of multi-talker babble or competing speech.

16 nonymous UPF3B variant in a male with absent speech.

17 y and speed remain far below that of natural speech.

18 ability in the correlates of expert backward speech.

19 nd larger, phasic responses to auditory-only speech.

20 iled spectrotemporal information from visual speech.

21 angular variations due to the complexity of speech; 2) a longer distance, ~1 m, where directed trans

22 o' was uttered either in IDS or adult-direct speech (ADS) followed by an upright or inverted face.

23 ecialized for processing of pitch changes in speech affecting prosody.

24 havioral assessments of backward and forward speech alongside neuroimaging measures of voxel-based mo

25 g verbal quantity, verbal quality, and motor speech, alongside four core language and cognitive compo

26 Automated speech analysis may represent a novel method to detect o

27 isensory speech perception since audiovisual speech and auditory-only speech are easily intelligible

28 Human speech and bird song are acoustically complex communicat

29 h masks at blocking expiratory particles for speech and coughing at varied intensity and to assess wh

30 Audio analysis of the speech and coughing intensity confirmed that people spea

31 ocabularies in participant-generated natural speech and examined their relationships to individual di

32 Adverse events included speech and gait disturbances, weakness on the treated si

33 naturally embedding primes within a person's speech and gestures effectively influenced people's deci

34 radically improved our understanding of how speech and language abilities map to the brain in normal

35 h a spectrum of disorders, ranging from mild speech and language delay to intractable neurodevelopmen

36 s UPF3B mutation in a patient with prominent speech and language disabilities and identify plausible

37 anscription factor causes a severe monogenic speech and language disorder.

38 sed using anonymous surveys sent to UK-based Speech and Language Therapists (SLTs).

39 sustained positive responses to visual-only speech and larger, phasic responses to auditory-only spe

40 ENT Harmonic complex tones are ubiquitous in speech and music and produce strong pitch percepts when

41 tex.SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT Our perception of speech and music depends strongly on temporal context, i

42 c complex tones (HCTs) commonly occurring in speech and music evoke a strong pitch at their fundament

43 to the slow rates of FM that are crucial for speech and music.

44 h recognition in multi-talker noise when the speech and noise came from different locations.

45 gulate cortex is involved in the analysis of speech and nonspeech vocal feedback driving adaptation o

46 ognitive selection of orofacial, as well as, speech and nonspeech vocal responses; and the midcingula

47 Although the brain areas indispensable for speech and song learning are known, the neural circuits

48 We provided missing speech and spatial hearing cues through haptic stimulati

49 entrained cortical EEG responses to attended speech and to simple tones modulated at speech rates (4

50 al envelope modulations (TEMs) to understand speech, and clinical outcomes depend on the accuracy wit

51 n since audiovisual speech and auditory-only speech are easily intelligible but visual-only speech is

52 onstrate that spectrotemporal modulations in speech are more strongly represented in neural responses

53 tress testing using a series of standardized speech/arithmetic stressors and simultaneous brain imagi

54 spered sounds, and in congruence with normal speech articulation, as accounted for by the Bayesian cl

55 e contributing to the first author's keynote speech at the conference, its influencers, and its influ

56 The temporal structure of speech at this scale is remarkably stable across languag

57 E STATEMENT Lip-reading consists in decoding speech based on visual information derived from observat

58 Nonhuman primates might not have speech because they lack this ability.

59 ifficult to study neural responses to visual speech because visual-only speech is difficult or imposs

60 d in the HI listeners, both for the attended speech, but also for tone sequences modulated at slow ra

61 li always contained both auditory and visual speech, but jittering the onset asynchrony between modal

62 ttering observations have revealed that loud speech can emit thousands of oral fluid droplets per sec

63 ning networks have been trained to recognize speech, caption photographs, and translate text between

64 Visual speech carried by lip movements is an integral part of c

65 We propose that working representations of speech categories are driven both by their current envir

66 dditional resources to disambiguate degraded speech codes, resources mediated by nAChRs may be compro

67 research, three unique orthogonal connected speech components were extracted in a unified model, ref

68 llations track linguistic information during speech comprehension (Ding et al., 2016; Keitel et al.,

69 avioural dissociation of acoustic and visual speech comprehension and suggest that cerebral represent

70 mains unclear in how far visual and acoustic speech comprehension are mediated by the same brain regi

71 non-native language proficiency, reading and speech comprehension displayed substantial changes in he

72 lasticity of three language systems-reading, speech comprehension, and verbal production-in cross-sec

73 e following three language systems: reading, speech comprehension, and verbal production.

74 er this type of correspondence could improve speech comprehension, we selectively degraded the spectr

75 l substrate of statistical learning and even speech comprehension.

76 nd localization, ototoxicity prevention, and speech comprehension.

77 rve as a temporal map for listeners to group speech contents and to predict incoming speech signals.

78 evant representations of auditory and visual speech converged only in anterior angular and inferior f

79 investigate the neural encoding of temporal speech cues with a VOT continuum from /ba/ to /pa/.

80 representation of both spectral and temporal speech cues.

81 ith delayed motor milestones and significant speech delay (50% non-verbal); intellectual disability i

82 d by intellectual disability (ID), motor and speech delay, autistic features, hypotonia, feeding diff

83 uding hearing loss, developmental delay, and speech delay, but excluding death), and were assessed at

84 rum of intellectual disability, motor delay, speech delay, seizures, hypotonia, and behavioral proble

85 were weaker than responses to auditory-only speech, demonstrating a subadditive multisensory neural

86 aggerated intonation, has been documented in speech directed toward young children in many countries.

87 he asymmetry of motor influences on auditory speech discrimination ability [indexed by mismatch negat

88 crease in hearing sensitivity, threshold and speech discrimination.

89 ental language disorder, dyslexia, and motor-speech disorders such as articulation disorder and stutt

90 patients, which persisted in 2 at 4 months; speech disturbance in 15 patients, which persisted in 3

91 Speech droplets generated by asymptomatic carriers of se

92 tion and tracking of foreground objects like speech during natural listening.

93 siveness, supporting a model in which visual speech enhances the efficiency of auditory speech proces

94 However, despite robust attention-modulated speech entrainment, the HI listeners rated the competing

95 umans (17 females) entrained to the auditory speech envelope and lip movements (mouth opening) when l

96 effects of hearing loss on EEG correlates of speech envelope synchronization in cortex.

97 sitivity and decreased ability to understand speech, especially in a noisy environment.

98 We found that visual speech evokes a positive response in the human posterior

99 tence spectrograms to assess how well visual speech facilitated comprehension under each degradation

100 Visual speech facilitates auditory speech perception, but the v

101 evel visual (oral deformations) and auditory speech features (frequency modulations) to extract detai

102 uman brain, has been adapted to serve higher speech function.

103 Shifts in robot speech have the power not only to affect how people inte

104 A training method to improve speech hearing in noise has proven elusive, with most me

105 sible utility of using such games to improve speech hearing in noise.

106 2266; p = 8.9 x 10(-6)), STXBP1 with "absent speech" (HP: 0001344; p = 1.3 x 10(-11)), and SLC6A1 wit

107 es to achieve optimal tremor control without speech impairment in essential tremor patients with thal

108 ld-to-severe developmental delay, hypotonia, speech impairment, and seizures.

109 ntent and structure of spontaneous connected speech in 52 speakers during the acute stage of a left h

110 uced discriminability of neural responses to speech in background noise at high sound intensities, wi

111 the brain, so this ability is not special to speech in humans.

112 factors, including the ability to understand speech in noise (SiN).

113 the noise.SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT Recognizing speech in noise is challenging but can be facilitated by

114 s patients report difficulties understanding speech in noise or competing talkers, despite having "no

115 mal hearing abilities struggle to understand speech in noisy backgrounds.

116 selective attention to suppress distracting speech in situations when the distractor is well segrega

117 s (presbycusis) often struggle to understand speech in such situations, even when wearing a hearing a

118 we investigated the neural representation of speech in the auditory midbrain of gerbils with "hidden

119 ch this verbal content is processed as overt speech in the brain.

120 neural hearing loss often struggle to follow speech in the presence of competing talkers.

121 ognition thresholds were measured for target speech in the presence of multi-talker babble or competi

122 The findings also show motor theories (of speech) in a different light, placing new mechanistic co

123 th caregivers, compared with overheard adult speech, in the function of language networks in infancy.

124 ion performance (words-in-noise (WIN), quick speech-in-noise (QuickSIN), gaps-in-noise) and auditory

125 Speech-in-noise (SiN) perception is a critical aspect of

126 n temporal, spectral, intensive, masking and speech-in-noise perception tasks between 45 human listen

127 These results suggest that speech-in-noise problems experienced by older HI listene

128 tested using auditory reaction time and two speech-in-noise tasks.

129 ia, we found preserved integration of visual speech information to optimize processing of syntactic i

130 he presence of congruent auditory and visual speech inputs.SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT Watching the speake

131 While we have a good understanding of where speech integration occurs in the brain, it is unclear ho

132 wn to be modulated by acoustic landmarks and speech intelligibility (Doelling et al., 2014; Zoefel an

133 d for 78% of the variability in multi-talker speech intelligibility.

134 y which the brain merges auditory and visual speech into a unitary perception.

135 The mental rehearsal of natural speech involves the transformation of stimulus-locked sp

136 ditory speech understanding, especially when speech is degraded.

137 sponses to visual speech because visual-only speech is difficult or impossible to comprehend, unlike

138 e a descriptive norm against the use of hate speech is evidently in place to contexts in which the no

139 ith hearing their voice, especially when the speech is noisy.

140 eech are easily intelligible but visual-only speech is not.

141 l tasks.SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT Understanding speech is one of the most important human abilities.

142 brain extracts meaning from, silent, visual speech is still under debate.

143 Understanding language from speech is the human benchmark for this.

144 of animal behavior-from locomotion to human speech-is thought to consist of different hierarchical l

145 000 swallows manually labeled by experienced speech language pathologists.

146 earing loss can cause detrimental effects on speech, language, developmental, educational, and cognit

147 tradiol (E2), which is associated with human speech-language development, and is abundant in both NCM

148 boys in the first year of life produced more speech-like vocalizations than girls and that the effect

149 In speech, listeners extract continuously-varying spectrote

150 ore central in origin) produced by competing speech may further illuminate central interference due t

151 The origin of speech may have required the evolution of a "command app

152 s the discourses, we submitted the connected speech metrics to principal component analysis alongside

153 Our results support that a speech motor code is used for the recognition of infrequ

154 The data invite the hypothesis that the speech motor cortex is best modelled as a neural oscilla

155 speakers, the effects of disruption of left speech motor cortex on responses to tone changes were in

156 me changes, disruption of left but not right speech motor cortex suppressed responses in both languag

157 een language groups: disruption of the right speech motor cortex suppressed responses to tone changes

158 age speakers, whereas disruption of the left speech motor cortex suppressed responses to tone changes

159 that the contributions of the right and left speech motor cortex to auditory speech processing are de

160 We temporarily disrupted the right or left speech motor cortex using transcranial magnetic stimulat

161 a bidirectional interaction of auditory and speech motor cortices.

162 During speech production and speech motor learning, speakers' experience matched audi

163 aviors include perception and performance of speech, music, driving, and many sports.

164 and Redesign Model (STORM) and Nucleic-Acid Speech (NuSpeak), two orthogonal and synergistic deep le

165 Coordinated skills such as speech or dance involve sequences of actions that follow

166 lus rather than mental imagery of unrelated, speech or non-speech, sounds.

167 might help combine foreground elements, like speech, over seconds to aid their separation from the ba

168 N95 mask in the "no-talking" (P > .99) and "speech" (P = .831) scenarios.

169 auditory cortices, most likely facilitating speech parsing.SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT Lip-reading consis

170 maneuvers with assistance and guidance from speech pathologists to help improve HNC complications an

171 cordingly, they downweight pitch cues during speech perception and instead rely on other dimensions s

172 oken language, grounding cognitive models of speech perception and production in human neurobiology.

173 ed specification of a computational model of speech perception based on predictive coding frameworks.

174 Human speech perception can be described as Bayesian perceptua

175 lation associated with tinnitus and impaired speech perception cause cochlear synaptopathy, character

176 Hidden hearing loss manifests as speech perception difficulties with normal hearing thres

177 Auditory speech perception enables listeners to access phonologic

178 up and top-down markers of poor multi-talker speech perception identified here could inform the desig

179 It is well established that speech perception is improved when we are able to see th

180 Speech perception is mediated by both left and right aud

181 anterior middle temporal and angular gyri; a speech perception network involving superior temporal an

182 Speech perception presumably arises from internal models

183 is procedure is problematic for multisensory speech perception since audiovisual speech and auditory-

184 nduced by this disorder may actually improve speech perception under narrow conditions within an over

185 Speech perception uses information from both the auditor

186 Visual speech facilitates auditory speech perception, but the visual cues responsible for t

187 However, in speech perception, we lack evidence of perception being

188 ation of Heschl's gyrus selectively disrupts speech perception, while stimulation of planum temporale

189 al and auditory cues are combined to improve speech perception.

190 STG), a brain area known to be important for speech perception.

191 ght and left speech motor cortex to auditory speech processing are determined by the functional roles

192 istic function and language experience shape speech processing asymmetries.

193 dynamics that potentially shape auditory and speech processing at different levels of the cortical hi

194 asymmetry of motor contributions to auditory speech processing in male and female speakers of tonal a

195 l speech enhances the efficiency of auditory speech processing in pSTG.

196 own motor influences can affect asymmetry of speech processing in the auditory system.

197 Speech processing relies on interactions between auditor

198 derlying hemispheric asymmetries of auditory speech processing remain debated.

199 gyrus, enhancing the efficiency of auditory speech processing.

200 Visual speech produced drastically larger enhancements during s

201 During speech production and speech motor learning, speakers' e

202 tion on the multidimensionality of connected speech production at both behavioural and neural levels.

203 and vocal tract movements are linked during speech production by comparing videos of the face and fa

204 Human speech production requires the ability to couple motor a

205 the quantity and quality of fluent connected speech production while controlling for other co-factors

206 Similar to speech production, language produced with the hands by f

207 ion of planum temporale selectively disrupts speech production.

208 c stimuli that is uniquely suppressed during speech production.

209 s network across primate evolution to enable speech production.

210 atric) document the feasibility of capturing speech properties within the electrocochleography (ECoch

211 ve music perception, speech recognition, and speech prosody perception in CI users.

212 nded speech and to simple tones modulated at speech rates (4 Hz) in listeners with age-related hearin

213 orticogram with high accuracy and at natural-speech rates.

214 Models of speech recalibration classically ignore this volatility.

215 Automated speech recognition (ASR) systems, which use sophisticate

216 dynamic behaviors (motifs), as it is done in speech recognition and other data mining applications.

217 aks down in hearing-impaired individuals and speech recognition devices.

218 est that tinnitus negatively affected masked speech recognition even in individuals with no measurabl

219 o-haptic" stimulation substantially improved speech recognition in multi-talker noise when the speech

220 er, results suggest that noise adaptation in speech recognition is probably mediated by neural dynami

221 mations and the neuromorphic hardware to the speech recognition success rate.

222 for ameliorating hearing loss and improving speech recognition technology in the presence of backgro

223 uce these performance differences and ensure speech recognition technology is inclusive.

224 For competing speech, speech recognition thresholds were measured for differen

225 Speech recognition thresholds were measured for target s

226 Eye tracking with speech recognition was 92% accurate in labeling lesion l

227 l to significantly improve music perception, speech recognition, and speech prosody perception in CI

228 Using speech recognition, gaze points corresponding to each le

229 arious contexts, such as computer vision and speech recognition, multiview learning has not yet been

230 for bench-marking such devices is automatic speech recognition.

231 kthroughs in natural language processing and speech recognition.

232 specific tasks, such as image processing and speech recognition.

233 and for infant-directed over adult-directed speech, reflects early sensitivity to social communicati

234 watched news clips, campaign ads, and public speeches related to immigration policy.

235 ollect day-long audio recordings, and infant speech-related and adult vocalisation onsets and offsets

236 nfluence of visual cues on the processing of speech remain incompletely understood.

237 nd how it may have evolved to enable complex speech remain unknown.

238 gnal to synthesize a coarse-grained auditory speech representation in early auditory cortices.

239 esented in neural responses than alternative speech representations (e.g. spectrogram or articulatory

240 volves the transformation of stimulus-locked speech representations in sensorimotor and premotor cort

241 emes/visemes) or amodal (e.g., articulatory) speech representations, but require lossy remapping of s

242 in most nonhuman primates, the evolution of speech required the addition of vocalization onto this s

243 Connected speech samples across descriptive, narrative, and proced

244 Content analyses conducted on all connected speech samples indicated that performance differed acros

245 t were isolated in 8 of 75 (11%) cultures in speech scenarios (P = .02).

246 During the speech scenarios, subjects wearing a tight-fitting surgi

247 ic words in Jueju negatively correlated with speech segmentation, which provides an alternative persp

248 henomenon indicating predictive processes of speech segmentation-the neural phase advanced faster aft

249 rspective on how statistical cues facilitate speech segmentation.

250 ecific acoustic information contained in the speech signal.

251 those that are used to generate the acoustic speech signal.

252 resentations, but require lossy remapping of speech signals onto abstracted representations.

253 roup speech contents and to predict incoming speech signals.

254 elling we show that recalibration of natural speech sound categories is better described by represent

255 vements, mapping them onto the corresponding speech sound features; this information is fed to audito

256 account to embrace phonetic and phonological speech sound representations and their neural bases.

257 power (iHGP) across cortex in humans during speech-sound working memory in individuals with schizoph

258 r proposal by modeling fast recalibration of speech sounds after experiencing the McGurk effect.

259 ulators, which are key for the production of speech sounds in humans.

260 The asymmetry of processing of speech sounds is affected by low-level acoustic cues, bu

261 m that tests auditory working memory for non-speech sounds that vary in frequency and amplitude modul

262 During encoding of speech sounds, SZ lacked the correlation of iHGP with ta

263 pecific sensory features are associated with speech sounds.

264 eners to access phonological categories from speech sounds.

265 n mental imagery of unrelated, speech or non-speech, sounds.

266 peaker out of an acoustic mixture of several speech sources.

267 t driven by cross-modal recovery of auditory speech spectra.

268 ns, which can improve the neural encoding of speech spectral and temporal cues.

269 For competing speech, speech recognition thresholds were measured for

270 Even when the only task is listening to speech stimuli, participants should be asked to place th

271 significantly increased neural responses to speech stimuli, with a more pronounced increase at moder

272 enre and two naturalistic forms of connected speech (storytelling narrative, and procedural discourse

273 Listeners can parse speech streams by using not only grammatical and statist

274 tures present in attended as well as ignored speech, suggests an active cortical stream segregation p

275 inment, the HI listeners rated the competing speech task to be more difficult.

276 Participants completed two 5-min speech tasks during peak drug effects.

277 stinct types of nonlinear transformations of speech that varied considerably from primary to nonprima

278 sional signatures of two experts in backward speech, that is, the capacity to produce utterances by r

279 as exercise and physical, occupational, and speech therapies).

280 reliable and temporally precise responses to speech; these patterns transformed to distinct sentence-

281 f neurosurgical patients as they listened to speech, this approach significantly improves the predict

282 ities and the ability to benefit from visual speech to represent the syllabic content of SiN account

283 ent process was characterized by an auditory-speech-to-brain delay of ~70 ms in the left hemisphere,

284 the effect of the terrorist attacks in hate speech toward refugees in contexts where a descriptive n

285 rades the attentional modulation of cortical speech tracking.

286 Pitch is critical to speech understanding (particularly in noise), to separat

287 g paradigms that are also good predictors of speech understanding in humans.

288 In the present study, masked speech understanding was measured in normal hearing list

289 Lip-reading is known to improve auditory speech understanding, especially when speech is degraded

290 track the temporal dynamics of purely visual speech using the phase of their slow oscillations and ph

291 ts, suggesting that the detected patterns of speech variability are associated with drug consumption.

292 ons: manual, orofacial, nonspeech vocal, and speech vocal actions.

293 A decade after speech was first decoded from human brain signals, accur

294 In social settings, speech waveforms from nearby speakers mix together in ou

295 e articulators shape the spectral content of speech, we hypothesized that the perceptual system might

296 lts from scalp EEG, responses to audiovisual speech were weaker than responses to auditory-only speec

297 y tracks linguistic structure during natural speech, where linguistic structure does not follow such

298 this question using naturalistic audiovisual speech with intracranial recordings in humans of both se

299 iled spectrotemporal information from visual speech without employing high-level abstractions.

300 Droplet emission occurs during speech, yet few studies document the flow to provide the