Benjamin Morillon
@bnmorillon.bsky.social
Cognitive Neuroscientist - Aix-Marseille Uni. Auditory, Speech, Music perception. sEEG/MEG; neural dynamics; audio-motor coupling.
CCL #1: Neural response to speech primarily reflects the signal’s own temporal architecture.
CCL #2: Cross-frequency coding principles are not confined to brain dynamics but also shape communicative signals.
Feel free to DM me if you’d like to discuss it.
Happy to answer questions!
CCL #2: Cross-frequency coding principles are not confined to brain dynamics but also shape communicative signals.
Feel free to DM me if you’d like to discuss it.
Happy to answer questions!
October 24, 2025 at 9:57 AM
CCL #1: Neural response to speech primarily reflects the signal’s own temporal architecture.
CCL #2: Cross-frequency coding principles are not confined to brain dynamics but also shape communicative signals.
Feel free to DM me if you’d like to discuss it.
Happy to answer questions!
CCL #2: Cross-frequency coding principles are not confined to brain dynamics but also shape communicative signals.
Feel free to DM me if you’d like to discuss it.
Happy to answer questions!
Using stereo-EEG in 18 epilepsy patients during naturalistic listening, we show that:
• speech → brain Granger causality peaks at theta and gamma bands.
• PAC emerges during speech (not at rest)
• theta and gamma responses come from spatially segregated sources in auditory cortex.
• speech → brain Granger causality peaks at theta and gamma bands.
• PAC emerges during speech (not at rest)
• theta and gamma responses come from spatially segregated sources in auditory cortex.
October 24, 2025 at 9:57 AM
Using stereo-EEG in 18 epilepsy patients during naturalistic listening, we show that:
• speech → brain Granger causality peaks at theta and gamma bands.
• PAC emerges during speech (not at rest)
• theta and gamma responses come from spatially segregated sources in auditory cortex.
• speech → brain Granger causality peaks at theta and gamma bands.
• PAC emerges during speech (not at rest)
• theta and gamma responses come from spatially segregated sources in auditory cortex.
We analysed speech corpora in 17 languages and found that classic theta (~4 Hz) and gamma (~30–50 Hz) spectral signatures — and their phase–amplitude coupling (PAC) — are embedded in the speech signal itself (not just in the brain).
October 24, 2025 at 9:57 AM
We analysed speech corpora in 17 languages and found that classic theta (~4 Hz) and gamma (~30–50 Hz) spectral signatures — and their phase–amplitude coupling (PAC) — are embedded in the speech signal itself (not just in the brain).
Permanent link: royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/...
April 15, 2025 at 9:57 AM
Permanent link: royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/...
hmmm, sorry about that (the temporary free link has expired)...
Here's a permanent link: royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/...
Here's a permanent link: royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/...
April 15, 2025 at 9:56 AM
hmmm, sorry about that (the temporary free link has expired)...
Here's a permanent link: royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/...
Here's a permanent link: royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/...
Want to dive deeper into how rhythmic movement and speech production can facilitate speech perception in noise?
Check out our full paper in Proc. R. Soc. B!
➡️ royalsocietypublishing.org/eprint/ZWRPM...
Check out our full paper in Proc. R. Soc. B!
➡️ royalsocietypublishing.org/eprint/ZWRPM...
April 9, 2025 at 9:38 AM
Want to dive deeper into how rhythmic movement and speech production can facilitate speech perception in noise?
Check out our full paper in Proc. R. Soc. B!
➡️ royalsocietypublishing.org/eprint/ZWRPM...
Check out our full paper in Proc. R. Soc. B!
➡️ royalsocietypublishing.org/eprint/ZWRPM...
These findings highlight the functional role of our motor system in processing the temporal dynamics of naturalistic speech in noisy situations. 👂
April 9, 2025 at 9:38 AM
These findings highlight the functional role of our motor system in processing the temporal dynamics of naturalistic speech in noisy situations. 👂
But that's not all: We also discovered that overtly vocalizing words (regardless of their meaning) during the priming period also enhances the efficiency of later speech-in-noise processing. 🗣️
April 9, 2025 at 9:38 AM
But that's not all: We also discovered that overtly vocalizing words (regardless of their meaning) during the priming period also enhances the efficiency of later speech-in-noise processing. 🗣️
Interestingly, this benefit wasn't just about following an external beat. Whether the rhythmic movement was self-generated or triggered by an auditory cue, the positive impact on speech perception remained.
April 9, 2025 at 9:38 AM
Interestingly, this benefit wasn't just about following an external beat. Whether the rhythmic movement was self-generated or triggered by an auditory cue, the positive impact on speech perception remained.
Our study found that rhythmic finger tapping at the lexical rate (~1.8 Hz) prior to speech-in-noise perception significantly improves subsequent speech processing in noise.
Importantly, tapping at syllabic or phrasal rate had no such effect.
Importantly, tapping at syllabic or phrasal rate had no such effect.
April 9, 2025 at 9:38 AM
Our study found that rhythmic finger tapping at the lexical rate (~1.8 Hz) prior to speech-in-noise perception significantly improves subsequent speech processing in noise.
Importantly, tapping at syllabic or phrasal rate had no such effect.
Importantly, tapping at syllabic or phrasal rate had no such effect.
Congrats to Anna Lorenz and the d-cap iEEG team @INS @univ-amu.fr @insermpacacorse.bsky.social !
Supported by @ilcb.bsky.social @erc.europa.eu @agencerecherche.bsky.social and Fondation pour l'audition.
Supported by @ilcb.bsky.social @erc.europa.eu @agencerecherche.bsky.social and Fondation pour l'audition.
March 26, 2025 at 4:19 PM
Congrats to Anna Lorenz and the d-cap iEEG team @INS @univ-amu.fr @insermpacacorse.bsky.social !
Supported by @ilcb.bsky.social @erc.europa.eu @agencerecherche.bsky.social and Fondation pour l'audition.
Supported by @ilcb.bsky.social @erc.europa.eu @agencerecherche.bsky.social and Fondation pour l'audition.
Importantly, the neural response to simple perceptual repetition of the same excerpt of speech and music was different from the modulation observed during self-production. This indicates that the production effects are not simply due to familiarity or repetition.
March 26, 2025 at 4:19 PM
Importantly, the neural response to simple perceptual repetition of the same excerpt of speech and music was different from the modulation observed during self-production. This indicates that the production effects are not simply due to familiarity or repetition.