title: Mismatch negativity at Fz in response to within-category changes of the vowel /i/.
abstract: The amplitude of the mismatch negativity response for acoustic within-category deviations in speech stimuli was investigated by presenting participants with different exemplars of the vowel /i/ in an odd-ball paradigm. The deviants differed from the standard either in terms of fundamental frequency, the first formant, or the second formant. Changes in fundamental frequency are generally more salient than changes in the first formant, which in turn are more salient than changes in the second formant. The mismatch negativity response was expected to reflect this with greater amplitude for more salient deviations. The fundamental frequency deviants did indeed result in greater amplitude than both first formant deviants and second formant deviants, but no difference was found between the first formant deviants and the second formant deviants. It is concluded that greater difference between standard and within-category deviants across different acoustic dimensions results in greater mismatch negativity amplitude, suggesting that the processing of linguistically irrelevant changes in speech sounds may be processed similar to nonspeech sound changes.
authors.affiliation: Phonetics Laboratory, Department of Linguistics, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden.
authors.forename: Ellen
authors.initials: E
authors.lastname: Marklund
authors.forename: Iris-Corinna
authors.initials: IC
authors.lastname: Schwarz
authors.forename: Francisco
authors.initials: F
authors.lastname: Lacerda
mesh_terms: D000161:Acoustic Stimulation; D000328:Adult; D001921:Brain / Q000502:physiology*; D005072:Evoked Potentials, Auditory; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D010700:Phonetics; D013067:Speech Perception / Q000502:physiology*
references.citation: Neuroreport. 2001 Aug 8;12(11):2467-71
references.pmid: 11496131
references.citation: Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1987 Jan;66(1):75-81
references.pmid: 2431869
references.citation: Clin Neurophysiol. 2007 Jan;118(1):177-85
references.pmid: 17070103
references.citation: Psychophysiology. 2008 Jan;45(1):60-9
references.pmid: 17868262
references.citation: Neuroreport. 2002 Oct 7;13(14):1813-6
references.pmid: 12395130
references.citation: Nature. 1994 Nov 3;372(6501):90-2
references.pmid: 7969425
references.citation: Int J Psychophysiol. 2013 Jan;87(1):103-10
references.pmid: 23201145
references.citation: Neuroreport. 1997 Mar 3;8(4):919-24
references.pmid: 9141065
references.citation: Biol Psychol. 2009 Dec;82(3):219-26
references.pmid: 19646504
references.citation: Psychophysiology. 2011 Oct;48(10):1372-80
references.pmid: 21564122
references.citation: J Acoust Soc Am. 1999 Aug;106(2):1078-83
references.pmid: 10462812
references.citation: Neuroreport. 2004 Jul 19;15(10):1683-6
references.pmid: 15232307
references.citation: Brain Res. 2010 Dec 17;1366:149-61
references.pmid: 20920484
references.citation: Nature. 1997 Jan 30;385(6615):432-4
references.pmid: 9009189
references.citation: Psychophysiology. 2001 Jan;38(1):1-21
references.pmid: 11321610
references.citation: Clin Neurophysiol. 2007 Dec;118(12):2544-90
references.pmid: 17931964
references.citation: Neuroreport. 2005 Sep 8;16(13):1513-8
references.pmid: 16110281