Author
Listed:
- Sander van Bree
- Ediz Sohoglu
- Matthew H Davis
- Benedikt Zoefel
Abstract
Rhythmic sensory or electrical stimulation will produce rhythmic brain responses. These rhythmic responses are often interpreted as endogenous neural oscillations aligned (or “entrained”) to the stimulus rhythm. However, stimulus-aligned brain responses can also be explained as a sequence of evoked responses, which only appear regular due to the rhythmicity of the stimulus, without necessarily involving underlying neural oscillations. To distinguish evoked responses from true oscillatory activity, we tested whether rhythmic stimulation produces oscillatory responses which continue after the end of the stimulus. Such sustained effects provide evidence for true involvement of neural oscillations. In Experiment 1, we found that rhythmic intelligible, but not unintelligible speech produces oscillatory responses in magnetoencephalography (MEG) which outlast the stimulus at parietal sensors. In Experiment 2, we found that transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS) leads to rhythmic fluctuations in speech perception outcomes after the end of electrical stimulation. We further report that the phase relation between electroencephalography (EEG) responses and rhythmic intelligible speech can predict the tACS phase that leads to most accurate speech perception. Together, we provide fundamental results for several lines of research—including neural entrainment and tACS—and reveal endogenous neural oscillations as a key underlying principle for speech perception.Just as a child on a swing continues to move after the pushing stops, this study reveals similar entrained rhythmic echoes in brain activity after hearing speech and electrical brain stimulation; perturbation with tACS shows that these brain oscillations help listeners to understand speech.
Suggested Citation
Sander van Bree & Ediz Sohoglu & Matthew H Davis & Benedikt Zoefel, 2021.
"Sustained neural rhythms reveal endogenous oscillations supporting speech perception,"
PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 19(2), pages 1-33, February.
Handle:
RePEc:plo:pbio00:3001142
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3001142
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pbio00:3001142. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosbiology (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/ .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.