On putative shortcomings and dangerous future avenues: response to Strijkers &amp; Costa

Indefrey, Peter

doi:10.1080/23273798.2015.1128554

Cited by 12 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, neurophysiological studies may show early activity in motor cortex during the production of speech, suggesting parallel processes. However, as pointed out by 19 , such early activity in motor cortex may reflect sequential semantic processing that relies on embodied representations. In other words, the current data on the dynamics of brain activity cannot be used to distinguish between theoretical proposals on the timecourse of cognitive and linguistic components during speech production.…”

Section: Icmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…However, our current data have no bearing on the conclusions reached by these studies. Indeed as argued by 19 , even though brain activity in areas subserving speech production may be parallel, the cognitive and linguistic components that are computed by this parallel activity may nevertheless proceed in a serial manner (see discussion between 19,25 ). For example, neurophysiological studies may show early activity in motor cortex during the production of speech, suggesting parallel processes.…”

Section: Icmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These studies have focused on questions about the timecourse of cognitive/linguistic properties such as semantics, lexical access and phonology e.g. [19][20][21][22][23][24][25] , and not on the activation dynamics of brain regions. We will come back to this issue in the General Discussion.Previous MEG studies on the activation dynamics of speech production in the picture naming task have all relied on a similar analysis approach.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Exploring the temporal dynamics of speech production with EEG and group ICA

Janssen

Meij

López-Pérez

et al. 2020

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Speech production is a complex skill whose neural implementation relies on a large number of different regions in the brain. How neural activity in these different regions varies as a function of time during the production of speech remains poorly understood. Previous MEG studies on this topic have concluded that activity proceeds from posterior to anterior regions of the brain in a sequential manner. Here we tested this claim using the EEG technique. Specifically, participants performed a picture naming task while their naming latencies and scalp potentials were recorded. We performed group temporal independent component Analysis (group ticA) to obtain temporally independent component timecourses and their corresponding topographic maps. We identified fifteen components whose estimated neural sources were located in various areas of the brain. The trial-by-trial component timecourses were predictive of the naming latency, implying their involvement in the task. Crucially, we computed the degree of concurrent activity of each component timecourse to test whether activity was sequential or parallel. Our results revealed that these fifteen distinct neural sources exhibit largely concurrent activity during speech production. These results suggest that speech production relies on neural activity that takes place in parallel networks of distributed neural sources.It is now well understood that the production of speech relies on neural activity in a wide range of different areas of the brain e.g. [1][2][3][4][5][6][7] . How this activity is coordinated over time such that it results in fast and fluent speech remains largely unknown. Therapy design for various pathologies such as aphasia, dysarthria and stuttering requires first a good understanding of the workings of speech production under non-pathological circumstances. Here we examined the activation dynamics of different areas of the brain while speech was produced. Specifically, speech production was elicited using a picture naming task in which participants overtly produced single words in response to visually presented objects. Previous Positron Emission Tomography (PET) and functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) studies have repeatedly shown that picture naming yields activation in occipital, temporal, frontal and parietal areas of the cortex, as well as in the striatum, thalamus and brain stem of the subcortex e.g. [8][9][10][11][12] . Although these studies are informative about the location of brain activity underlying picture naming, other techniques such as Magnetoencephalography (MEG) and Electroencephalography (EEG) are needed to examine the precise temporal dynamics of neural activity underlying the task. With respect to this issue, previous MEG studies have concluded that neural activation underlying picture naming proceeds from posterior to anterior areas of the brain in a sequential manner e.g. [13][14][15][16][17][18] . Here we attempted to validate this conclusion from MEG studies by using a different analysis approach that relied on EEG data...

show abstract

Section: Icmentioning

confidence: 96%

Section: Icmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Exploring the temporal dynamics of speech production with EEG and group ICA

Janssen

Meij

López-Pérez

et al. 2020

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, proponents of sequential brain language models remain skeptical whether such early parallel activation of lexical and phonological word representations is plausible. One frequently uttered reservation concerns the possibility that these early effects highlight sensorial and/or attentional differences between stimuli-sets rather than linguistic brain activity (e.g., Hagoort, 2008; Mahon & Caramazza, 2008; Indefrey, 2016). Indeed, several of the studies showing that both lexical and phonological brain correlates within the first 200 ms of processing relied on physically different stimuli-sets (e.g., Strijkers et al, 2010; 2017; McGregor et al, 2012; Miozzo et al, 2015).…”

Section: Figurementioning

confidence: 99%

The same ultra-rapid parallel brain dynamics underpin the production and perception of speech

Fairs

Michelas

Dufour

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The temporal dynamics by which linguistic information becomes available is one of the key properties to understand how language is organised in the brain. An unresolved debate between different brain language models is whether words, the building blocks of language, are activated in a sequential or parallel manner. In this study we approached this issue from a novel perspective by directly comparing the time course of word component activation in speech production versus perception. In an overt object naming task and a passive listening task we analysed with mixed linear models at the single-trial level the event-related brain potentials elicited by the same lexico-semantic and phonological word knowledge in the two language modalities. Results revealed that both word components manifested simultaneously as early as 75 ms after stimulus onset in production and perception; differences between the language modalities only became apparent after 300 ms of processing. The data provide evidence for ultra-rapid parallel dynamics of language processing and are interpreted within a neural assembly framework where words recruit the same integrated cell assemblies across production and perception. These word assemblies ignite early on in parallel and only later on reverberate in a behaviour-specific manner.

show abstract

“…Here, we do not attempt to provide a comprehensive review of the rapidly growing literature on neuroimaging and electrophysiological evidence (for recent reviews and discussions, please see e.g. Zubicaray & Piai, 2019;Indefrey & Levelt, 2011;Indefrey, 2016;Munding et al, 2016;Piai, Riès, and Knight, 2015;Piai, 2016;Strijkers K. & Costa A., 2016). Instead, we selectively discuss neuro-cognitive evidence revealing additional information to evaluate the assumptions on semantic processing and the trade-off and temporal overlap between conceptual priming and competitive lexical selection.…”

Section: Neurocognitive Evidencementioning

confidence: 99%

Semantic processing during language production: an update of the swinging lexical network

Rahman

Melinger

2019

Language, Cognition and Neuroscience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Semantic processing in language production includes different meaning relations determining the selection of lexical representations that best express the intended message. Here, we discuss assumptions of the swinging lexical network proposal (SLN), proposed to account for effects of different semantic relations in a variety of experimental paradigms, with effects ranging from semantic facilitation to interference. The SLN is based on two assumptions. First, conceptual and lexical processing proceed in parallel and may exhibit opposite effects of conceptual priming and lexical competition. Second, the amount of lexical competition is determined by the co-activation of an interrelated lexical cohort and is thus sensitive to the number and strength of active competitors. We discuss behavioral effects across different experimental paradigms and semantic relations in light of the SLN and suggest that by adopting the basic assumptions we can account for a wide range of semantic facilitation and interference effects in language production.

show abstract

On putative shortcomings and dangerous future avenues: response to Strijkers & Costa

Cited by 12 publications

References 21 publications

Exploring the temporal dynamics of speech production with EEG and group ICA

Exploring the temporal dynamics of speech production with EEG and group ICA

The same ultra-rapid parallel brain dynamics underpin the production and perception of speech

Semantic processing during language production: an update of the swinging lexical network

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About