Sublexical properties of spoken words modulate activity in Broca's area but not superior temporal cortex: implications for models of speech recognition.
Many models of spoken word recognition posit that the acoustic stream is parsed into phoneme level units, which in turn activate larger representations [McClelland, J. L., & Elman, J. L. The TRACE model of speech perception. Cognitive Psychology, 18, 1-86, 1986], whereas others suggest that larger units of analysis are activated without the need for segmental mediation [Greenberg, S. A multitier theoretical framework for understanding spoken language. In S. Greenberg & W. A. Ainsworth (Eds.), Listening to speech: An auditory perspective (pp. 411-433). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 2005; Klatt, D. H. Speech perception: A model of acoustic-phonetic analysis and lexical access. Journal of Phonetics, 7, 279-312, 1979; Massaro, D. W. Preperceptual images, processing time, and perceptual units in auditory perception. Psychological Review, 79, 124-145, 1972]. Identifying segmental effects in the brain's response to speech may speak to this question. For example, if such effects were localized to relatively early processing stages in auditory cortex, this would support a model of speech recognition in which segmental units are explicitly parsed out. In contrast, segmental processes that occur outside auditory cortex may indicate that alternative models should be considered. The current fMRI experiment manipulated the phonotactic frequency (PF) of words that were auditorily presented in short lists while participants performed a pseudoword detection task. PF is thought to modulate networks in which phoneme level units are represented. The present experiment identified activity in the left inferior frontal gyrus that was positively correlated with PF. No effects of PF were found in temporal lobe regions. We propose that the observed phonotactic effects during speech listening reflect the strength of the association between acoustic speech patterns and articulatory speech codes involving phoneme level units. On the basis of existing lesion evidence, we interpret the function of this auditory-motor association as playing a role primarily in production. These findings are consistent with the view that phoneme level units are not necessarily accessed during speech recognition.
University of California at Irvine, Irvine, CA 92697, USA.
Kenneth I
KI
Vaden
Tepring
T
Piquado
Gregory
G
Hickok
D000161:Acoustic Stimulation / Q000379:methods; D000293:Adolescent; D000328:Adult; D000704:Analysis of Variance; D001931:Brain Mapping; D005260:Female; D005625:Frontal Lobe / Q000098:blood supply / Q000502:physiology*; D007839:Functional Laterality; D006801:Humans; D007091:Image Processing, Computer-Assisted; D008279:Magnetic Resonance Imaging; D008297:Male; D010100:Oxygen / Q000097:blood; D046709:Pattern Recognition, Physiological / Q000502:physiology*; D011930:Reaction Time / Q000502:physiology; D013060:Speech / Q000502:physiology*; D013067:Speech Perception / Q000502:physiology*; D013702:Temporal Lobe / Q000098:blood supply / Q000502:physiology*; D014825:Vocabulary; D055815:Young Adult
D010100:Oxygen
Cereb Cortex. 2009 Sep;19(9):2156-65
19181696
Cogn Psychol. 1986 Jan;18(1):1-86
3753912
J Cogn Neurosci. 2000 Jul;12(4):679-90
10936919
Brain Lang. 2004 Jan;88(1):148-59
14698739
Phys Life Rev. 2009 Sep;6(3):121-43
20161054
Brain Lang. 2004 Jul-Sep;90(1-3):88-94
15172527
Cognition. 2004 May-Jun;92(1-2):67-99
15037127
Eur J Neurosci. 2005 Feb;21(3):793-7
15733097
Neuroimage. 2004 Jul;22(3):1182-94
15219590
J Cogn Neurosci. 2009 Jul;21(7):1229-43
19199415
Neuroimage. 2004 May;22(1):360-6
15110027
Neuroimage. 2003 Feb;18(2):293-309
12595184
Cogn Neuropsychol. 2002 Jun 1;19(4):343-61
20957543
J Exp Psychol Gen. 2005 Nov;134(4):477-500
16316287
Neuroimage. 2010 Jan 1;49(1):1018-23
19651222
Trends Cogn Sci. 2000 Apr;4(4):131-138
10740277
Science. 1998 Feb 20;279(5354):1213-6
9469813
Psychol Rev. 1998 Oct;105(4):611-33
9830375
Cognition. 1994 Apr-Jun;50(1-3):239-69
8039363
J Acoust Soc Am. 2002 Apr;111(4):1872-91
12002871
Hum Brain Mapp. 2003 Mar;18(3):201-7
12599278
Nat Neurosci. 2009 Jun;12(6):718-24
19471271
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2005 Jul;31(4):729-35
16060776
J Mem Lang. 2000 May;42(4):481-496
21738287
Brain Lang. 2008 Dec;107(3):179-84
18976806
Neuropsychologia. 2006;44(12):2209-21
16842827
Hum Brain Mapp. 2006 Dec;27(12):963-72
16628608
Trends Cogn Sci. 2009 Aug;13(8):329-30; author reply 330-1
19646917
Cereb Cortex. 2000 May;10(5):512-28
10847601
Cereb Cortex. 2010 Oct;20(10):2486-95
20100898
Trends Cogn Sci. 2009 Mar;13(3):110-4
19223222
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005 Jan 25;102(4):1181-6
15647358
J Neurosci. 2003 Apr 15;23(8):3423-31
12716950
Hum Brain Mapp. 2009 Nov;30(11):3596-608
19365800
Cognition. 2008 Jun;107(3):1155-64
18096149
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2004 Mar;30(2):514-29
14979821
Science. 1992 May 8;256(5058):846-9
1589767
Cognition. 1999 Feb 1;70(1):27-52
10193055
Cognition. 2001 Mar;78(3):B53-64
11124355
Trends Cogn Sci. 2003 May;7(5):187-189
12757816
BMC Neurosci. 2005 Nov 11;6:64
16283934
Brain Res Cogn Brain Res. 2003 Apr;16(2):285-96
12668238
Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1996 Jan;98(1):76-85
8689998
Psychol Rev. 1972 Mar;79(2):124-45
5024158
Brain Lang. 1999 Jun 1-15;68(1-2):306-11
10433774
Neuroimage. 2009 Jul 1;46(3):786-802
19195496
Clin Linguist Phon. 2003 Sep;17(6):487-99
14564833
J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2006 Dec;49(6):1175-92
17197489
Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2008 Mar 12;363(1493):1071-86
17890189
J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2001 Aug;44(4):778-92
11521771
Neuroreport. 2006 Aug 21;17(12):1293-6
16951572
J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2001 Jun;27(3):644-55
11424651
Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput. 2004 Aug;36(3):384-7
15641427
Nat Rev Neurosci. 2007 May;8(5):393-402
17431404
Brain Lang. 2002 Apr-Jun;81(1-3):666-78
12081430
Neuroimage. 2005 Jul 1;26(3):647-61
15955475
Neuroimage. 2006 Aug 15;32(2):821-41
16730195
Curr Biol. 2009 Mar 10;19(5):381-5
19217297
Brain Lang. 2008 Nov;107(2):102-13
18294683