title: ANALOGY AND DISANALOGY IN PRODUCTION AND PERCEPTION OF SPEECH.
abstract: A varied psychological vocabulary now describes the cognitive and social conditions of language production, the ultimate result of which is the mechanical action of vocal musculature in spoken expression. Following the logic of the speech chain, descriptions of production have often exhibited a clear analogy to accounts of perception. This reciprocality is especially evident in explanations that rely on reafference to control production, on articulation to inform perception, and on strict parity between produced and perceived form to provide invariance in the relation between abstract linguistic objects and observed expression. However, a causal account of production and perception cannot derive solely from this hopeful analogy. Despite sharing of abstract linguistic representations, the control functions in production and perception as well as the constraints on their use stand in fundamental disanalogy. This is readily seen in the different adaptive challenges to production - to speak in a single voice - and perception - to resolve familiar linguistic properties in any voice. This acknowledgment sets descriptive and theoretical challenges that break the symmetry of production and perception. As a consequence, this recognition dislodges an old impasse between the psychoacoustic and motoric accounts in the regulation of production and perception.
authors: Department of Psychology and Program in Neuroscience & Behavior, Barnard College, Columbia University, New York, New York U. S. A.
authors: Robert E
authors: RE
authors: Remez
keywords: language system architecture; speech perception; speech production
references: J Acoust Soc Am. 2003 Jan;113(1):532-43
references: 12558289
references: J Acoust Soc Am. 2004 Dec;116(6):3647-58
references: 15658715
references: J Speech Hear Res. 1973 Jun;16(2):175-200
references: 4269271
references: Nature. 2002 Mar 7;416(6876):87-90
references: 11882898
references: Psychol Rev. 1998 Apr;105(2):251-79
references: 9577239
references: Psychol Rev. 1967 Nov;74(6):431-61
references: 4170865
references: J Acoust Soc Am. 1989 May;85(5):2223-4
references: 2525139
references: J Acoust Soc Am. 1967 Feb;41(2):310-20
references: 6040806
references: J Acoust Soc Am. 2008 Sep;124(3):1682-8
references: 19045658
references: J Acoust Soc Am. 1997 Oct;102(4):2353-9
references: 9348694
references: Wiley Interdiscip Rev Cogn Sci. 2013 Mar;4(2):213-223
references: 23926454
references: J Acoust Soc Am. 2004 Jun;115(6):3171-83
references: 15237841
references: Science. 1995 Oct 13;270(5234):303-4
references: 7569981
references: J Acoust Soc Am. 2006 Apr;119(4):2382-93
references: 16642851
references: J Acoust Soc Am. 1997 Apr;101(4):2299-310
references: 9104031
references: Brain Lang. 1997 Feb 15;56(3):354-76
references: 9070417
references: J Acoust Soc Am. 1997 Oct;102(4):2403-11
references: 9348698
references: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2011 Jun;37(3):968-77
references: 21443384
references: J Neurosci. 2010 Jan 20;30(3):1110-7
references: 20089919
references: Science. 1998 Feb 20;279(5354):1213-6
references: 9469813
references: J Prosthet Dent. 1978 Jul;40(1):60-6
references: 277686
references: Phonetica. 1981;37(5-6):306-26
references: 7280033
references: Science. 1981 May 22;212(4497):947-9
references: 7233191
references: Psychol Sci. 1994 Jan 1;5(1):42-46
references: 21526138
references: Cognition. 1985 Oct;21(1):1-36
references: 4075760
references: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1987 Feb;13(1):40-61
references: 2951488
references: J Speech Hear Res. 1960 Sep;3:227-41
references: 13771837
references: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2001 Feb;27(1):115-27
references: 11248927
references: Nature. 1974 Nov 8;252(5479):121-3
references: 4425217