Attentional and linguistic interactions in speech perception

Sabri, Merav; Binder, Jeffrey R.; Desai, Rutvik H.; Medler, David A.; Leitl, Michael; Liebenthal, Einat

doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2007.09.052

Cited by 81 publications

(84 citation statements)

References 84 publications

(94 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…elicits similar N400 effects if the processing demands of the primary task are high, e.g. an n-back task, remains a topic for further inquiry (for a related study see Sabri, Binder, Desai, Medler, Leitl, and Liebenthal, 2008). Second, the N400 effects suggest not only superficial, shallow processing of the speech signal, but instead deeper processing involving semantic and presumably conceptual information.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 91%

Event-related brain potentials during the monitoring of speech errors

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c t a r t i c l e i n f oWhen we perceive speech, our goal is to extract the meaning of the verbal message which includes semantic processing. However, how deeply do we process speech in different situations? In two experiments, native Dutch participants heard spoken sentences describing simultaneously presented pictures. Sentences either correctly described the pictures or contained an anomalous final word (i.e. a semantically or phonologically incongruent word). In the first experiment, spoken sentences were task-irrelevant and both anomalous conditions elicited similar centro-parietal N400s that were larger in amplitude than the N400 for the correct condition. In the second experiment, we ensured that participants processed the same stimuli semantically. In an early time window, we found similar phonological mismatch negativities for both anomalous conditions compared to the correct condition. These negativities were followed by an N400 that was larger for semantic than phonological errors. Together, these data suggest that we process speech semantically, even if the speech is task-irrelevant. Once listeners allocate more cognitive resources to the processing of speech, we suggest that they make predictions for upcoming words, presumably by means of the production system and an internal monitoring loop, to facilitate lexical processing of the perceived speech.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 91%

Event-related brain potentials during the monitoring of speech errors

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, voiced stop consonants are produced by temporarily closing the vocal tract with the lips ("b"), the tip of the tongue ("d"), or the root of the tongue ("g"). It is debated whether speech perception relies on internal transformation of speech signals to articulatory movements (Lotto et al, 2009;Scott et al, 2009;Hickok, 2010;Pulvermüller and Fadiga, 2010;Möttönen and Watkins, 2012), as suggested by the motor theory of speech perception (Liberman and Mattingly, 1985). This controversial view is supported by evidence showing that, in addition to the auditory cortex, the areas in the left motor cortex that control movements of the lips and tongue can be activated during listening to speech sounds in an articulatorspecific manner (Fadiga et al 2002;Pulvermüller et al, 2006).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This controversial view is supported by evidence showing that, in addition to the auditory cortex, the areas in the left motor cortex that control movements of the lips and tongue can be activated during listening to speech sounds in an articulatorspecific manner (Fadiga et al 2002;Pulvermüller et al, 2006). Moreover, transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) studies demonstrate that stimulation of these motor areas affects performance in demanding speech perception tasks (Meister et al, 2007;D'Ausilio et al, 2009;Möttönen and Watkins, 2009;Sato et al, 2009). For example, TMS-induced disruption in the motor lip area impairs performance in tasks that involve discrimination of lip-and tongue-articulated sounds (e.g., "ba" and "da") but has no effect on tasks that involve only tongue-articulated sounds (e.g., "ga" and "da"; Möttönen and Watkins, 2009).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Moreover, transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) studies demonstrate that stimulation of these motor areas affects performance in demanding speech perception tasks (Meister et al, 2007;D'Ausilio et al, 2009;Möttönen and Watkins, 2009;Sato et al, 2009). For example, TMS-induced disruption in the motor lip area impairs performance in tasks that involve discrimination of lip-and tongue-articulated sounds (e.g., "ba" and "da") but has no effect on tasks that involve only tongue-articulated sounds (e.g., "ga" and "da"; Möttönen and Watkins, 2009).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Attention Fine-Tunes Auditory–Motor Processing of Speech Sounds

Möttönen

Ven²,

Watkins³

2014

J. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The earliest stages of cortical processing of speech sounds take place in the auditory cortex. Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) studies have provided evidence that the human articulatory motor cortex contributes also to speech processing. For example, stimulation of the motor lip representation influences specifically discrimination of lip-articulated speech sounds. However, the timing of the neural mechanisms underlying these articulator-specific motor contributions to speech processing is unknown. Furthermore, it is unclear whether they depend on attention. Here, we used magnetoencephalography and TMS to investigate the effect of attention on specificity and timing of interactions between the auditory and motor cortex during processing of speech sounds. We found that TMS-induced disruption of the motor lip representation modulated specifically the early auditory-cortex responses to lip-articulated speech sounds when they were attended. These articulator-specific modulations were left-lateralized and remarkably early, occurring 60 -100 ms after sound onset. When speech sounds were ignored, the effect of this motor disruption on auditory-cortex responses was nonspecific and bilateral, and it started later, 170 ms after sound onset. The findings indicate that articulatory motor cortex can contribute to auditory processing of speech sounds even in the absence of behavioral tasks and when the sounds are not in the focus of attention. Importantly, the findings also show that attention can selectively facilitate the interaction of the auditory cortex with specific articulator representations during speech processing.

show abstract

“…For example, in one fMRI study of speech comprehension we observed largely identical neural responses to high versus low ambiguity sentences during in the absence and presence of an engaging comprehension task (Rodd et al, 2005). Yet, we also observed greater variability in the neural responses observed during passive listening that are plausibly due to inattentive participants being less engaged in the comprehension process (see Sabri et al, 2008;Wild et al, 2012 for further studies of these attentional effects). More generally, we seek mechanistic theories that explain the links between neural responses and behavioural outcomes; these theories must therefore explain participants' behaviour during active tasks (see Henson, 2005;Taylor, Rastle, & Davis, 2014 for discussion).…”

Section: Future Directionsmentioning

confidence: 62%