Brain responses to audiovisual speech mismatch in infants are associated with individual differences in looking behaviour

Research on audiovisual speech integration has reported high levels of individual variability, especially among young infants. In the present study we tested the hypothesis that this variability results from individual differences in the maturation of audiovisual speech processing during infancy. A developmental shift in selective attention to audiovisual speech has been demonstrated between 6 and 9 months with an increase in the time spent looking to articulating mouths as compared to eyes (Lewkowicz & Hansen-Tift. (2012) Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA, 109, 1431–1436; Tomalski et al. (2012) Eur. J. Dev. Psychol., 1–14). In the present study we tested whether these changes in behavioural maturational level are associated with differences in brain responses to audiovisual speech across this age range. We measured high-density event-related potentials (ERPs) in response to videos of audiovisually matching and mismatched syllables /ba/ and /ga/, and subsequently examined visual scanning of the same stimuli with eye-tracking. There were no clear age-specific changes in ERPs, but the amplitude of audiovisual mismatch response (AVMMR) to the combination of visual /ba/ and auditory /ga/ was strongly negatively associated with looking time to the mouth in the same condition. These results have significant implications for our understanding of individual differences in neural signatures of audiovisual speech processing in infants, suggesting that they are not strictly related to chronological age but instead associated with the maturation of looking behaviour, and develop at individual rates in the second half of the first year of life.

Speech of Mr. C. G. Memminger, on the question of rechartering the bank of the state of South Carolina: delivered in the House of Representatives, December 9, 1848

This speech by Mr. Memminger offers resolutions on the issue of rechartering the bank of the state of South Carolina. The issues presented are the Bank of the State is founded on an erroneous policy, unwise for a state to engage in banking, not practical to recharter the Bank of the State and a special committee of each house should be appointed to advise how to carry out these resolutions at the next session.

The sectionalism of the tariff bill. Speech of Hon. John L. McLaurin, of South Carolina, in the Senate of the United States

This document contains a speech by John L. McLaurin, representative of South Carolina. Sections of the speech include: sectionalism exposed, the bill might have been defeated, the south plundered of its rights, not a protectionist, fraudulent demands of New England, Hon. Randolph Tucker, Hon. W.R. Morrison, and Hon. R.Q. Mills strangers to the doctrine in 1882, a tariff for revenue against the doctrine of free raw material, don’t want Cleveland’s interpretation, contest of schedules, and my remedy.

Speech of Hon. John Lowndes McLaurin, of South Carolina, in the Senate of the United States, Monday, December 9, 1901

This document contains a speech by John L. McLaurin of South Carolina presented in the Senate of the United States. Sections of the speech include: sectionalism the cause, conditions in South Carolina, the federal administration in South Carolina, should not array class against class, freedom of thought and speech, the issues, under caucus dictation the Senate no longer a deliberative body, the beginning of the fight, matter of arraying class against class, freedom of thought and speech, and issues.

The tariff. Speech of Representative J. L. McLaurin, of South Carolina, in the House of Representatives, Tuesday, March 23, 1897

This document contains a speech of John L. McLaurin, representative of South Carolina, in the House of Representatives on Tuesday, March 23, 1897 about proposed tariffs.

Where the consumer is not a myth : letters from England describing economic and industrial conditions by Zach McGhee, Washington correspondent : speech of Hon. Wyatt Aiken in the House of Representatives, Tuesday, March 22, 1910

This document contains a speech of David Wyatt Aiken, representative of South Carolina, to the House of Representatives on Tuesday, March 22, 1910. Much of the speech is a letter from Zach McGhee, Washington correspondent of The State newspaper on industrial conditions in England and Europe.

Protection to farmers : speech of Hon. D. Wyatt Aiken, of South Carolina, in the House of Representatives, Tuesday, March 6, 1882, upon the Agricultural Appropriation Bill

This speech is about the Agricultural Appropriation Bill, which is a bill making appropriations for the Agricultural Department of the Government for the fiscal year ending in June 30,1883. Mr. Aiken is approved by the chairman to speak and he goes on to explain that he agrees with the majority of the bill with the exception of two or three clauses. He gives the reasoning behind his objections in the rest of the speech.

Speech delivered by Hon. Hermann Ridder at the one hundred and forty-second anniversary dinner, German Friendly Society, Charleston, S. C., January 15th, 1908

The speech was delivered to the German Friendly Society by the Hon. Hermann Ridder and opens with a brief history of the society and its importance. He then goes on to acknowledge notable German settlers and their importance. He calls for history to be rewritten and textbooks to be revised to give credit to the Germans who contributed to America’s foundation and history.

Speech of Hon. James H. Hammond, of South Carolina, on the relation of states; delivered in the Senate of the United States, May 21, 1860

The speech is a response by Hon. James H. Hammond as to whether or not the territorial governments established by Congress have the power to define and declare what shall be and what shall not be property within the territorial boundaries. The speech goes on to discuss colonists who went to newly purchased territory and claimed land as their own. He argues whether or not these people have sovereignty of the land over the government.

Speech of Hon. John Lowndes McLaurin, of South Carolina, in the Senate of the United States, Monday, December 9, 1901

This speech is to address the statement that Mr. McLaurin has been excluded from the caucuses of his party and thus that he will be without assignment on any committee. He goes on to explain his exclusion and defend his views that led to his exclusion.

Speech of Mr. Calhoun, of South Carolina, on the slavery question. Delivered in the Senate of the United States, March 4, 1850

The speech addresses the question, how can the union be preserved? He goes on to explain the threats to the union and give suggestions for how the threats can be handled.

Stable standard essential for prosperity. Speech in the Senate of the United States, February 4, 1878

This speech was given when the United States Senate was considering a bill to authorize the free coinage of the standard silver dollar and to restore its legal tender character. Mr. Bayard argues against the bill in this speech. He is interrupted during his speech multiple times and questioned about his points.

Campaign speech of W.D. Mayfield [for re-election as State Superintendent of Education]

This speech was given by Mr. Mayfield while running for re-election to the office of State Superintendent of Education. He gives evidence and reasons that he should be re-elected. He also talks about his future plans for if he does get re-elected.

Free coinage of silver : speech of Hon. William Elliott, of South Carolina, in the House of Representatives, Thursday, February 13, 1896 [Pamphlet]

This speech is given to the United States House of Representatives. Hon. William Elliot gives a persuasive argument for why he will be voting against the senate amendment for free coinage of silver. He defines free coinage of silver and he describes fifty-cent dollar. He discusses the fall in the price of products and provides causation.

La parole en action : dissensus sur les accommodements raisonnables lors des auditions en commission parlementaire au Québec (2010-2011)

La question du pluralisme religieux est au Québec, l’objet de désaccords et de variations dans son mode de régulation et ses instruments d’action publique. La consultation publique sur le projet loi n° 94, Loi établissant les balises encadrant les demandes d’accommodement dans l’Administration gouvernementale et dans certains établissements, est au cœur de ceux-ci. En se basant sur l’analyse des séances d’auditions publiques en commission parlementaire qui ont eu lieu au Québec entre mai 2010 et janvier 2011 sur le projet de loi n° 94, cette thèse vise à interroger les enjeux liés à la publicisation des prises de positions et de l’échange d’arguments entre différents acteurs. À partir d’une méthodologie par théorisation enracinée et d’un cadre conceptuel qui se rattache à la communication publique, cette thèse cherche à mettre en évidence quelques-unes des propriétés des interactions verbales et non verbales qui composent et incarnent cette activité délibérative. Elle approche ces interactions du point de vue de leur publicisation en s’appuyant sur deux principes : la participation publique en tant qu’un instant de la construction du problème public et l’audition publique en commission parlementaire comme maillon d’un réseau dialogique qui participe à la publicisation du désaccord sur les accommodements raisonnables. Mettant l’accent sur l’usage du langage (verbal, non verbal et para verbal), l’objectif de cette thèse est de mieux comprendre comment des groupes minoritaires et majoritaires, engagés dans une arène publique où les points de vue par rapport aux accommodements raisonnables sont confrontés et mis en visibilité, gèrent leur situation de parole publique. La démarche de recherche a combiné deux stratégies d’analyse : la première stratégie d’inspiration conversationnelle, qui observe chaque séquence comme objet indépendant, a permis de saisir le déroulement des séances d’audition en respectant le caractère séquentiel des tours de parole La deuxième stratégie reviens sur les principaux résultats de l’analyse des séances d’auditions pour valider les résultats et parvenir à la saturation théorique pour élaborer une modélisation. L’exploitation des données selon cette approche qualitative a abouti au repérage de trois dynamiques. La première fait état des contraintes discursives. La seconde met en évidence le rôle des dimensions motivationnelles et socioculturelles dans la construction des positionnements et dans l’adoption d’un registre polémique. La troisième souligne la portée de la parole publique en termes d’actualisation des rapports de pouvoir et de confirmation de son caractère polémique. La modélisation proposée par cette thèse représente le registre polémique comme un élément constitutif de l’engagement argumentatif des acteurs sociaux mais qui est considérablement enchâssé dans d’autres éléments contextuels et motivationnels qui vont orienter sa portée. En tant qu’elle est exprimée dans un site dialogique, la parole publique en situation d’audition publique en commission parlementaire est en mesure de créer de nouvelles intrigues et d’une possibilité de coexister dans le dissensus. Le principal apport de cette thèse est qu’elle propose une articulation, concrète et originale entre une approche de la parole publique en tant que révélatrice d’autre chose que d’elle-même (nécessaire à tout éclaircissement des points de vue dans cette controverse) et une approche de la parole publique en tant que performance conduisant à la transformation du monde social. D’où, le titre de la thèse : la parole en action. Mots clefs : parole publique, discours, arène publique, pluralisme religieux, accommodements raisonnables, controverses, dissensus, théorisation enracinée