Toward Collaboration Between the Fields of Signal and Sentence Processing
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Cortical Tracking of Speech: Toward Collaboration between the Fields of Signal and Sentence Processing Eleonora J. Beier1, Suphasiree Chantavarin1,2, Gwendolyn Rehrig1, Fernanda Ferreira1, and Lee M. Miller1 Abstract ■ In recent years, a growing number of studies have used corti- between the two fields could be mutually beneficial. Specifically, cal tracking methods to investigate auditory language processing. we argue that the use of cortical tracking methods may help re- Although most studies that employ cortical tracking stem from solve long-standing debates in the field of sentence processing that the field of auditory signal processing, this approach should also commonly used behavioral and neural measures (e.g., ERPs) have be of interest to psycholinguistics—particularly the subfield of failed to adjudicate. Similarly, signal processing researchers who sentence processing—given its potential to provide insight into usecorticaltrackingmaybeabletoreducenoiseintheneuraldata dynamic language comprehension processes. However, there and broaden the impact of their results by controlling for linguis- has been limited collaboration between these fields, which we tic features of their stimuli and by using simple comprehension suggest is partly because of differences in theoretical background tasks. Overall, we argue that a balance between the methodolog- and methodological constraints, some mutually exclusive. In this ical constraints of the two fields will lead to an overall improved paper, we first review the theories and methodological con- understanding of language processing as well as greater clarity on straints that have historically been prioritized in each field and what mechanisms cortical tracking of speech reflects. Increased provide concrete examples of how some of these constraints collaboration will help resolve debates in both fields and will lead may be reconciled. We then elaborate on how further collaboration to new and exciting avenues for research. ■ INTRODUCTION 2019; see later sections for further discussion of terminol- Recent years have seen a growing interest in the cortical ogy and debates in this field). It has been proposed that tracking of speech as a potential measure of acoustic, lin- entrainment may contribute to improved speech pro- guistic, and cognitive processing (Meyer, Sun, & Martin, cessing and language comprehension—for instance, by 2020; Obleser & Kayser, 2019; Kösem & van Wassenhove, instantiating temporal predictions that enable segmenta- 2017; Meyer, 2018; see Tyler, 2020). The terms “cortical tion of the continuous speech signal into units at several tracking” or “speech tracking” loosely refer to continuous timescales (Keitel, Gross, & Kayser, 2018; Kösem et al., neural activity that is somehow time-locked to ongoing 2018; Meyer & Gumbert, 2018; Meyer et al., 2017; Ding events in the speech signal. According to one common et al., 2016; Zoefel & VanRullen, 2015; Doelling et al., interpretation, cortical tracking reflects the tendency for 2014; Peelle et al., 2013; Giraud & Poeppel, 2012; neural oscillations to align, or phase-lock, with quasiperi- Peelle & Davis, 2012; Ahissar et al., 2001). odic features in the speech signal. These quasiperiodic Cortical tracking methods should therefore be of great elements of speech can be acoustic, such as the fluctua- interest to researchers studying sentence processing tions in the amplitude envelope associated with syllables from a psycholinguistic perspective. Sentence processing (Doelling, Arnal, Ghitza, & Poeppel, 2014; Peelle, Gross, research makes frequent use of ERPs to draw inferences & Davis, 2013) or linguistic representations generated in about neural responses to isolated, discrete events such the mind of the listener, such as syntactic phrase bound- as word onsets or sentence boundaries (Swaab, Ledoux, aries (Meyer, Henry, Gaston, Schmuck, & Friederici, Camblin, & Boudewyn, 2012; Kutas & Federmeier, 2011; 2017; Ding, Melloni, Zhang, Tian, & Poeppel, 2016). Kutas, Van Petten, & Kluender, 2006) as well as time– Researchers adopting this approach often refer to cortical frequency analyses of EEG oscillatory power at specific tracking as “neural entrainment” (Obleser & Kayser, bands (Prystauka & Lewis, 2019). However, the field of sentence processing has yet to fully incorporate cortical 1University of California, Davis, 2Chulalongkorn University, tracking as a tool to investigate language processing Bangkok, Thailand mechanisms continuously, rather than at discrete epochs. © 2021 Massachusetts Institute of Technology Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 33:4, pp. 574–593 https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_01676 Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/jocn_a_01676 by guest on 26 September 2021 As we will argue, combining measures of cortical tracking about linguistic processing by using more of the contin- with typical psycholinguistic paradigms may help resolve uous EEG data through cortical tracking methods, signal long-standing debates and distinguish between compet- processing research would gain a better understanding of ing theories of language processing, while also making the role of cortical tracking in the processing of speech use of continuous EEG data that are typically treated as by controlling and manipulating the linguistic features of noise in ERP paradigms (a point we discuss further in the stimulus, which are often underspecified in current the section titled Contributions to Psycholinguistics). studies. In general, there has been limited collaboration be- In this paper, we first review the theoretical back- tween signal processing neuroscientists who use cortical ground and the methodological constraints that have his- tracking paradigms and psycholinguists, despite the fact torically been prioritized in the study of sentence that both fields share the common goal of elucidating processing and the neuroscience of auditory signal pro- how listeners process spoken language. To be more spe- cessing. We then explore in more detail what further col- cific, the research areas that are most relevant for our laboration between these two fields could bring, purposes are the study of human sentence processing, highlighting how cortical tracking methods could be which is a subfield of psycholinguistics, and the study used to improve our understanding of continuous sen- of auditory signal processing, which is often carried out tence comprehension and how paradigms from psycho- by perceptual neurophysiologists and engineers who are linguistics may in turn improve our understanding of the interested in how the brain transforms auditory signals transformations listeners apply to speech as an input sig- and who may implement cortical tracking in their re- nal. Finally, we will provide concrete ideas for how to rec- search methods. These research topics intersect when oncile each field’s constraints to reach these goals. We the auditory signal comprises spoken sentences. For con- conclude by arguing that, although no perfect experi- venience, we will refer to these research areas as “sen- ment can be constructed that will satisfy all constraints, tence processing” and “signal processing” throughout, a better mutual understanding of each field’sapproach with the caveat that the fields are not mutually exclusive; will greatly improve experimental designs in both fields there are psycholinguists who employ cortical tracking and open up new exciting avenues for research. methods to study sentence processing (e.g., Song & Iverson, 2018; Martin & Doumas, 2017; Meyer et al., 2017), signal processing researchers who are interested OVERVIEW OF RESEARCH ON SIGNAL AND in the linguistic properties of the speech signal (e.g., SENTENCE PROCESSING Ding et al., 2016), and investigators with clear interest in both fields who already conduct studies that incorpo- Cortical Tracking in Signal Processing Research rate the methodological compromises we suggest later Cortical tracking refers to the observed alignment of on (e.g., Giraud & Poeppel, 2012; Peelle & Davis, 2012; rhythmic neural activity with an external periodic or qua- Obleser & Kotz, 2011). siperiodic stimulus. It has been observed in response to Despite these notable examples of interaction, the two both visual and auditory stimuli (Besle et al., 2011; fields remain largely independent. Part of the reason for Gomez-Ramirez et al., 2011; Luo, Liu, & Poeppel, 2010; this limited collaboration stems from the different ways Lakatos, Karmos, Mehta, Ulbert, & Schroeder, 2008; these two fields conceptualize and define language pro- Lakatos et al., 2005). Although this phenomenon has re- cessing; whereas sentence processing research focuses ceived growing interest in the past decade, there is still on the cognitive and linguistic representations formed considerable debate as to the neural causes of cortical during comprehension, signal processing research treats tracking and the role it may play in various aspects of cog- speech as an example of a complex auditory signal and nition (e.g., attention, temporal prediction, speech pro- seeks to characterize the system that transforms that in- cessing). Specifically, debate has centered around put signal into an output signal or response (e.g., whether cortical tracking results from the phase-locking Rimmele, Morillon, Poeppel, & Arnal, 2018; Morillon & of ongoing, endogenous oscillations (Calderone, Lakatos, Schroeder, 2015). An additional hurdle to collaboration Butler, & Castellanos, 2014; Doelling et al., 2014; Giraud stems