What does scalar timing tell us about neural dynamics?

Shouval, Harel Z.; Shuler, Marshall G. Hussain; Agarwal, Animesh; Gavornik, Jeffrey P.

doi:10.3389/fnhum.2014.00438

Cited by 5 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Findings of greater timing variability in phrase-final and/or phrasally prominent positions are thus consistent with the view that speech makes use of a general-purpose timekeeping mechanism, with variability that is proportional to the surface duration of the timed interval, as suggested by Gallistel, 1999;Gallistel and Gibbon, 2000;Jones and Wearden, 2004;Shouval et al, 2014;and others). The law applies to timing behavior in many different tasks (non-speech) and speech, and in perception and in production.…”

Section: More Timing Variability For Longer Duration Intervals Suggessupporting

confidence: 82%

Timing Evidence for Symbolic Phonological Representations and Phonology-Extrinsic Timing in Speech Production

Turk

Shattuck‐Hufnagel

2020

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The goals of this paper are (1) to discuss the key features of existing articulatory models of speech production that govern their approaches to timing, along with advantages and disadvantages of each, and (2) to evaluate these features in terms of several pieces of evidence from both the speech and nonspeech motor control literature. This evidence includes greater timing precision at movement endpoints compared to other parts of movements, suggesting the separate control of the timing of movement endpoints compared to other parts of movement. This endpoint timing precision challenges models in which all parts of a movement trajectory are controlled by the same equation of motion, but supports models in which (a) abstract, symbolic phonological representations map onto spatial and temporal characteristics of the part(s) of movement most closely related to the goal of producing a planned set of acoustic cues to signal the phonological contrast (often the endpoint), (b) movements are coordinated primarily based on the goal-related part of movement, and (c) speakers give priority to the accurate implementation of the part(s) of movement most closely related to the phonological goals. In addition, this paper presents three types of evidence for phonology-extrinsic timing, suggesting that surface duration requirements are represented during speech production. Phonology-extrinsic timing is also supported by greater timing variability for repetitions of longer intervals, assumed to be due to noise in a general-purpose (and phonology-extrinsic) timekeeping process. The evidence appears to be incompatible with models that have a unified Phonology/Phonetics Component, that do not represent the surface timing of phonetic events, and do not represent, specify and track timing by general-purpose timekeeping mechanisms. Taken together, this evidence supports an alternative approach to modeling speech production that is based on symbolic phonological representations and generalpurpose, phonology-extrinsic, timekeeping mechanisms, rather than on spatio-temporal phonological representations and phonology-specific timing mechanisms. Thus, the evidence suggests that models in that alternative framework should be developed, so they can be tested with the same rigor as have models based on spatio-temporal phonological representations with phonology-intrinsic timing.

show abstract

Section: More Timing Variability For Longer Duration Intervals Suggessupporting

confidence: 82%

Timing Evidence for Symbolic Phonological Representations and Phonology-Extrinsic Timing in Speech Production

Turk

Shattuck‐Hufnagel

2020

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This theoretical possibility was explored computationally in a series of papers that showed how reward-modulated plasticity of excitatory synapses in the V1 circuit could produce temporal representations with the same basic features seen experimentally (Gavornik et al 2009;Gavornik and Shouval 2011;Shouval et al 2013Shouval et al , 2014. This learning model posits that a globally available reward signal allows Hebbian-type associations, transiently encoded by the molecular precursors of LTP termed "proto-weights," to be expressed as permanent synaptic modifications, and that ongoing activity in the network quashes additional potentiation once evoked activity correctly predicts the time of reward delivery.…”

Section: Rodent V1 Reports Reward Timingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Higher brain functions served by the lowly rodent primary visual cortex

Gavornik

Bear

2014

Learn. Mem.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It has been more than 50 years since the first description of ocular dominance plasticity-the profound modification of primary visual cortex (V1) following temporary monocular deprivation. This discovery immediately attracted the intense interest of neurobiologists focused on the general question of how experience and deprivation modify the brain as a potential substrate for learning and memory. The pace of discovery has quickened considerably in recent years as mice have become the preferred species to study visual cortical plasticity, and new studies have overturned the dogma that primary sensory cortex is immutable after a developmental critical period. Recent work has shown that, in addition to ocular dominance plasticity, adult visual cortex exhibits several forms of response modification previously considered the exclusive province of higher cortical areas. These "higher brain functions" include neural reports of stimulus familiarity, reward-timing prediction, and spatiotemporal sequence learning. Primary visual cortex can no longer be viewed as a simple visual feature detector with static properties determined during early development. Rodent V1 is a rich and dynamic cortical area in which functions normally associated only with "higher" brain regions can be studied at the mechanistic level.

show abstract

“…The findings appear to instead require the repre sen ta tion of surface durations in solar time units, where longer duration intervals contain more surface time intervals (that is, they are longer in solar time) than shorter duration intervals. Greater variability of these longer duration intervals can be explained by a "noisy" timekeeper, in which variability correlates with interval duration (Gallistel 1999;Gallistel and Gibbon 2000;Jones and Wearden 2004;Shouval et al 2014). It is not clear how AP/TD can account for these findings, because surface durations are only emergent in this approach, and are not represented.…”

Section: Challenges To Ap/td's Phonology-intrinsic Timing By Evidence...mentioning

confidence: 99%