2007
DOI: 10.1016/j.heares.2007.01.014
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Hearing speech sounds: Top-down influences on the interface between audition and speech perception

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

32
263
0
3

Year Published

2010
2010
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4
4

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 369 publications
(312 citation statements)
references
References 161 publications
32
263
0
3
Order By: Relevance
“…These findings are in line with several studies that have associated temporal cortex with speech intelligibility (Davis & Johnsrude, 2007; Hickok & Poeppel, 2007; Narain et al., 2003). In contrast, our results showed BOLD decreases in temporal cortex between the first and second presentations of the distorted stimuli (see also Blank & Davis, 2016).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 93%
“…These findings are in line with several studies that have associated temporal cortex with speech intelligibility (Davis & Johnsrude, 2007; Hickok & Poeppel, 2007; Narain et al., 2003). In contrast, our results showed BOLD decreases in temporal cortex between the first and second presentations of the distorted stimuli (see also Blank & Davis, 2016).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 93%
“…In the frame of psycholinguistic models of language processing, our results suggest that degraded speech comprehension, which requires restoration or compensation of partial linguistic information, constitutes a privileged situation in which to look at the importance of bottom-up and top-down interactions during speech processing (see also Davis and Johnsrude, 2007 Cocktail party situations may further allow testing the issue of subliminal processing in multi-talker babble as participants can not consciously process all the overlapping speech streams. Whereas subliminal processing has been extensively studied in visual word processing (Forster and Davis, 1984), it has hardly ever been tested in the auditory modality due to the lack of a suitable paradigm.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 93%
“…Our findings show that this lexical interference is stronger when words in the babble are highly frequent, as these words may strongly activate the mental lexicon, hence increasing lexical competition between target speech and background. As mentioned in the introduction, psycholinguistic models of language processing postulate that word recognition is the result of strong competitive mechanisms between concurrently activated lexical candidates (Davis and Johnsrude, 2007;Marslen-Wilson et al, 1996;McClelland and Elman, 1986). Since less information is required to activate highly frequent words compared to low frequent words, in a particularly challenging situation, these words may be stronger competitors during word recognition than low-frequency words.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…It was hypothesized that for human listeners, native speech had advantages on the task of auditory detection, which does not require linguistic related responses, over non-native speech and non-speech sounds. Detecting native phonemes is enhanced possibly by the top-down mechanism during auditory processing (Davis and Johnsrude, 2007). Given the approach of Liu and Jin's study (2015) that compared detection thresholds of speech stimuli between Chinese and Korean listeners, this study was to measure a) Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%