Pre-attentive auditory processing of lexicality

Jacobsen, Thomas; Horváth, János; Schröger, Erich; Lattner, Sonja; Widmann, Andreas; Winkler, István

doi:10.1016/s0093-934x(03)00156-1

Cited by 76 publications

(77 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As expected, location deviants elicited an MMN, indicating the detection of the location change (e.g., Schröger, 2007), and a P3a, indicating an involuntary switch of attention to the location change (e.g., Escera, 1998). However, whereas several previous studies observed familiarity effects on the MMN and/or P3a (e.g., Näätänen et al, 1997;Beauchemin et al, 2006;Pulvermüller et al, 2001;Jacobsen et al, 2004Jacobsen et al, , 2005, no effects of sound familiarity on these deviant-related components were observed in the present study. Note, that an effective manipulation of sound familiarity was assured in a stimulus pre-test and was reflected in overall processing differences observed for the familiar and the unfamiliar stimulus.…”

Section: Location-deviant Processing For the Familiar And The Unfamilsupporting

confidence: 64%

“…Regarding sound familiarity, several studies reported enhanced auditory deviance processing for familiar compared to unfamiliar deviant sounds [e.g., for native vs. non-native speech sounds (e.g., Näätänen et al, 1997); personally familiar vs. unfamiliar voices (e.g., Beauchemin et al, 2006); lexical items vs. pseudowords (e.g., Pulvermüller et al, 2001) or meaningful vs. non-meaningful environmental sounds (e.g., Frangos et al, 2005;Jacobsen et al, 2005)]. Additionally, Jacobsen et al (2004Jacobsen et al ( , 2005 reported enhanced auditory deviance detection when deviants are presented in a sequence of familiar standard sounds, i.e. in a familiar context.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Conversely, properties of the auditory context have been shown to influence task-related processing of individual sounds (e.g., Trainor and Trehub, 1993; see also Ballas and Mullins, 1991). Moreover, data of Jacobsen et al (2004) indicate that a familiar sound context might influence the passive processing of single sounds. To address possible contextrelated effects, the present study contrasted the processing of the familiar and the unfamiliar sound when sounds were either presented in separate blocks (i.e.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Familiarity affects environmental sound processing outside the focus of attention: An event-related potential study

Kirmse

Jacobsen

Schröger

2009

Clinical Neurophysiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c tObjective: This study investigated the influence of the familiarity of an environmental sound on sound processing outside the focus of attention. Methods: By comparing ERPs elicited by a familiar, animal sound and an acoustically matched, but unfamiliar, complex sound, three issues were addressed: (a) general differences in the processing of the familiar and the unfamiliar sound, (b) influences of sound familiarity on the processing of deviants unrelated to familiarity and (c) familiarity-specific processing depending on the sound context. Participants watched a silent, subtitled movie. Results: The familiar sound elicited a centro-parietal enhancement of the N1, a frontocentrally enhanced P2 and an additional P250. Auditory deviance processing elicited by deviants in sound location was not influenced by the familiarity of the sounds. However, after an involuntary switch of attention to the deviant, an N400-like deflection indicated enhanced semantic analysis of the familiar deviant. Familiarityspecific ERP effects as a consequence of the sound context occurred between 300 and 500 ms after stimulus onset. Conclusion: Whereas familiarity of an environmental sound elicited enhanced stimulus processing before 300 ms, influences of the sound context were observed subsequent to 300 ms. Significance: Familiarity of a complex environmental sound influences several stages of auditory processing outside the focus of attention.

show abstract

Section: Location-deviant Processing For the Familiar And The Unfamilsupporting

confidence: 64%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Familiarity affects environmental sound processing outside the focus of attention: An event-related potential study

Kirmse

Jacobsen

Schröger

2009

Clinical Neurophysiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The properties of these memory traces may be reflected by the size, latency and topographical distribution of the MMN. Interestingly, the MMN appears to be sensitive to language-specific phoneme representations (Mitterer and Blomert, 2003;Näätänen, 2001;Näätänen et al, 1997;Phillips et al, 2000;Winkler et al, 1999) and lexical representations of words (Jacobsen et al, 2004a;Pulvermüller et al, 2001). In particular, both in adults (DehaeneLambertz, 1997;Näätänen et al, 1997) and in infants (Cheour et al, 1998;Dehaene-Lambertz and Baillet, 1998), phonemes that are prototypical in the native language elicit larger MMN responses as compared to phonemes that do not occur in that language but are still discriminable.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Auditory cortical tuning to statistical regularities in phonology

Bonte

Mitterer

Zellagui

et al. 2005

Clinical Neurophysiology

124

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: Ample behavioral evidence suggests that distributional properties of the language environment influence the processing of speech. Yet, how these characteristics are reflected in neural processes remains largely unknown. The present ERP study investigates neurophysiological correlates of phonotactic probability: the distributional frequency of phoneme combinations. Methods: We employed an ERP measure indicative of experience-dependent auditory memory traces, the mismatch negativity (MMN). We presented pairs of non-words that differed by the degree of phonotactic probability in a modified passive oddball design that minimizes the contribution of acoustic processes. Results: In Experiment 1 the non-word with high phonotactic probability (notsel) elicited a significantly enhanced MMN as compared to the non-word with low phonotactic probability (notkel). In Experiment 2 this finding was replicated with a non-word pair with a smaller acoustic difference (notsel-notfel). An MMN enhancement was not observed in a third acoustic control experiment with stimuli having comparable phonotactic probability (so-fo). Conclusions: Our data suggest that auditory cortical responses to phoneme clusters are modulated by statistical regularities of phoneme combinations. Significance: This study indicates that the language environment is relevant in shaping the neural processing of speech. Furthermore, it provides a potentially useful design for investigating implicit phonological processing in children with anomalous language functions like dyslexia.

show abstract

“…Nonetheless, the activation of, and reverberation of excitation within, neuronal circuits functioning as memory traces is necessary in both combined adaptation-inhibition and inhibition models to explain the word enhancement of the MMN. 7 In all simulations, standard responses were somewhat larger to words than to pseudowords, thereby modelling an effect reported experimentally (e.g., Jacobsen et al, 2004). However, in most networks with inhibition, this familiarity difference in standard responses was small compared with the respective difference in DEV responses.…”

Section: Experiments 2 -Long-term Memory Mmn In the Language Cortexmentioning

confidence: 53%

From sounds to words: A neurocomputational model of adaptation, inhibition and memory processes in auditory change detection

Garagnani

Pulvermüller

2011

NeuroImage

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Most animals detect sudden changes in trains of repeated stimuli but only some can learn a wide range of sensory patterns and recognize them later, a skill crucial for the evolutionary success of higher mammals. Here we use a neural model mimicking the cortical anatomy of sensory and motor areas and their connections to explain brain activity indexing auditory change and memory access. Our simulations indicate that while neuronal adaptation and local inhibition of cortical activity can explain aspects of change detection as observed when a repeated unfamiliar sound changes in frequency, the brain dynamics elicited by auditory stimulation with well-known patterns (such as meaningful words) cannot be accounted for on the basis of adaptation and inhibition alone. Specifically, we show that the stronger brain responses observed to familiar stimuli in passive oddball tasks are best explained in terms of activation of memory circuits that emerged in the cortex during the learning of these stimuli. Such memory circuits, and the activation enhancement they entail, are absent for unfamiliar stimuli. The model illustrates how basic neurobiological mechanisms, including neuronal adaptation, lateral inhibition, and Hebbian learning, underlie neuronal assembly formation and dynamics, and differentially contribute to the brain's major change-detection response, the mismatch negativity.

show abstract

Pre-attentive auditory processing of lexicality

Cited by 76 publications

References 38 publications

Familiarity affects environmental sound processing outside the focus of attention: An event-related potential study

Familiarity affects environmental sound processing outside the focus of attention: An event-related potential study

Auditory cortical tuning to statistical regularities in phonology

From sounds to words: A neurocomputational model of adaptation, inhibition and memory processes in auditory change detection

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About