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

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.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
PLoS Computational Biology
Published
2024-09-09
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1012433
Citations
5
Primary Topic
Multisensory perception and integration
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
2.54

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

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

Alyssa M Field, Liberty S. Hamilton, Maansi Desai
5 citations
PLoS Computational Biology
Multisensory perception and integration
2.54
article

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

Alyssa M Field, Liberty S. Hamilton, Maansi Desai
article en
5 citations

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.

PLoS Computational BiologyVol. 20(9)
Austin College (US), The University of Texas at Austin (US)
Fondation Pour l'Audition
Quality Education
Openalex Percentile: Top 10%
Multisensory perception and integration
2.54
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.