One classical argument in favor of a functional role of the motor system in speech perception comes from the close-shadowing task in which a subject has to identify and to repeat as quickly as possible an auditory speech stimulus. The fact that close-shadowing can occur very rapidly and much faster than manual identification of the speech target is taken to suggest that perceptually induced speech representations are already shaped in a motor-compatible format. Another argument is provided by audiovisual interactions often interpreted as referring to a multisensory-motor framework. In this study, we attempted to combine these two paradigms by testing whether the visual modality could speed motor response in a close-shadowing task. To this aim, both oral and manual responses were evaluated during the perception of auditory and audiovisual speech stimuli, clear or embedded in white noise. Overall, oral responses were faster than manual ones, but it also appeared that they were less accurate in noise, which suggests that motor representations evoked by the speech input could be rough at a first processing stage. In the presence of acoustic noise, the audiovisual modality led to both faster and more accurate responses than the auditory modality. No interaction was however, observed between modality and response. Altogether, these results are interpreted within a two-stage sensory-motor framework, in which the auditory and visual streams are integrated together and with internally generated motor representations before a final decision may be available.
Faster reaction times were observed for oral than for manual responses in all groups, suggesting that perceptuo-motor relationships were somewhat successfully functional after cochlear implantation and remain efficient in the NHE group. These results are in agreement with recent perceptuo-motor theories of speech perception. They are also supported by the theoretical assumption that implicit motor knowledge and motor representations partly constrain auditory speech processing. In this framework, oral responses would have been generated at an earlier stage of a sensorimotor loop, whereas manual responses would appear late, leading to slower but more accurate responses. The difference between oral and manual responses suggests that the perceptuo-motor loop is still effective for NHE subjects and also for cochlear-implanted participants, despite degraded global performance.
Abstract:Speech communication can be viewed as an interactive process involving a functional coupling between sensory and motor systems. One striking example comes from phonetic convergence, when speakers automatically tend to mimic their interlocutor's speech during communicative interaction.The goal of this study was to investigate sensory-motor linkage in speech production in postlingually deaf cochlear implanted participants and normal hearing elderly adults through phonetic convergence and imitation. To this aim, two vowel production tasks, with or without instruction to imitate an acoustic vowel, were proposed to three groups of young adults with normal hearing, elderly adults with normal hearing and post-lingually deaf cochlear-implanted patients. Measure of the deviation of each participant's f 0 from their own mean f 0 was measured to evaluate the ability to converge to each acoustic target.Results showed that cochlear-implanted participants have the ability to converge to an acoustic target, both intentionally and unintentionally, albeit with a lower degree than young and elderly participants with normal hearing. By providing evidence for phonetic convergence and speech imitation, these results suggest that, as in young adults, perceptuo-motor relationships are efficient in elderly adults with normal hearing and that cochlear-implanted adults recovered significant perceptuo-motor abilities following cochlear implantation.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.