Auditory–Motor Interactions for the Production of Native and Non-Native Speech

Abstract

During speech production, auditory processing of self-generated speech is used to adjust subsequent articulations. The current study investigated how the proposed auditory-motor interactions are manifest at the neural level in native and non-native speakers of English who were overtly naming pictures of objects and reading their written names. Data were acquired with functional magnetic resonance imaging and analyzed with dynamic causal modeling. We found that (1) higher activity in articulatory regions caused activity in auditory regions to decrease (i.e., auditory suppression), and (2) higher activity in auditory regions caused activity in articulatory regions to increase (i.e., auditory feedback). In addition, we were able to demonstrate that (3) speaking in a non-native language involves more auditory feedback and less auditory suppression than speaking in a native language. The difference between native and non-native speakers was further supported by finding that, within non-native speakers, there was less auditory feedback for those with better verbal fluency. Consequently, the networks of more fluent non-native speakers looked more like those of native speakers. Together, these findings provide a foundation on which to explore auditory-motor interactions during speech production in other human populations, particularly those with speech difficulties.

The Neural Correlates of Speech Motor Sequence Learning

“…Thus, learning relies on the transmission of these signals to frontal regions involved in motor planning and execution. In keeping with this view, Parker Jones et al (2013) noted stronger functional connectivity between motor and auditory areas in nonnative speakers than native speakers during an overt production task. The correlation we found between learning success and white matter FA underlying pSTs (Figure 4, middle ) supports this interpretation.…”

Atypical delayed auditory feedback effect and Lombard effect on speech production in high-functioning adults with autism spectrum disorder

“…Although we showed that loud speech production did not help reduce the responses to DAF in the ASD group, it could not be ruled out that these two groups of participants utilized air- and bone-conducted auditory feedback in a different way. In addition, future studies should investigate which parts of the brain areas responsible for speech production ( Hashimoto and Sakai, 2003 ; Takaso et al, 2010 ; Hickok et al, 2011 ) are affected in ASD and verify our finding that speech production in individuals with ASD relies more on feedback control than on feedforward control on a neural basis ( Parker Jones et al, 2011 ).…”

Convergent and Divergent fMRI Responses in Children and Adults to Increasing Language Production Demands

“…We find that while school-age children and young adults do show many commonalities in activation (and condition-specific modulations of activation), there are large and regionally specific developmental differences in activation for picture naming that would not be picked up using one task alone, or one baseline alone. Not only do children and adults show quite different patterns of auditory-related activation potentially associated with speech monitoring ( Dhanjal et al 2008 ; Simmonds et al 2011 ; Agnew et al 2013 ; Parker Jones et al 2013 ), and differences in higher-order visual areas ( Cohen Kadosh et al 2013 ), we find that they show fundamentally different responses in frontal regions to incremental increases in naming difficulty.…”

“…In a study analogous to the present one, Parker Jones et al (2012 , 2013 ) compared monolingual English speakers and bilingual nonnative English speakers on a series of fMRI tasks requiring overt speech production—picture naming, reading, saying 1–2–3 to unfamiliar nonobjects and saying 1–2–3 to meaningless letter strings (in triads). Under a skill-learning account, we might expect that activation comparisons of nonnative to native speakers should pattern in the same way as the present study's comparison of children versus adults.…”