title: Perceptual Correlates of Turkish Word Stress and Their Contribution to Automatic Lexical Access: Evidence from Early ERP Components.
abstract: Perceptual correlates of Turkish word stress and their contribution to lexical access were studied using the mismatch negativity (MMN) component in event-related potentials (ERPs). The MMN was expected to indicate if segmentally identical Turkish words were distinguished on the sole basis of prosodic features such as fundamental frequency (f 0), spectral emphasis (SE), and duration. The salience of these features in lexical access was expected to be reflected in the amplitude of MMN responses. In a multi-deviant oddball paradigm, neural responses to changes in f 0, SE, and duration individually, as well as to all three features combined, were recorded for words and pseudowords presented to 14 native speakers of Turkish. The word and pseudoword contrast was used to differentiate language-related effects from acoustic-change effects on the neural responses. First and in line with previous findings, the overall MMN was maximal over frontal and central scalp locations. Second, changes in prosodic features elicited neural responses both in words and pseudowords, confirming the brain's automatic response to any change in auditory input. However, there were processing differences between the prosodic features, most significantly in f 0: While f 0 manipulation elicited a slightly right-lateralized frontally-maximal MMN in words, it elicited a frontal P3a in pseudowords. Considering that P3a is associated with involuntary allocation of attention to salient changes, the manipulations of f 0 in the absence of lexical processing lead to an intentional evaluation of pitch change. f 0 is therefore claimed to be lexically specified in Turkish. Rather than combined features, individual prosodic features differentiate language-related effects from acoustic-change effects. The present study confirms that segmentally identical words can be distinguished on the basis of prosodic information alone, and establishes the salience of f 0 in lexical access.
authors.affiliation: Department of Linguistics, Stockholm University Stockholm, Sweden.
authors.forename: Hatice
authors.initials: H
authors.lastname: Zora
authors.affiliation: Department of Linguistics, Stockholm University Stockholm, Sweden.
authors.forename: Mattias
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Heldner
authors.affiliation: Department of Linguistics, Stockholm University Stockholm, Sweden.
authors.forename: Iris-Corinna
authors.initials: IC
authors.lastname: Schwarz
keywords: Turkish; event-related potential; lexical access; prosody; word stress
references.citation: Neuroimage. 2003 Sep;20(1):159-72
references.pmid: 14527578
references.citation: Brain Res Cogn Brain Res. 2003 Mar;16(1):83-90
references.pmid: 12589892
references.citation: Psychophysiology. 1998 Jul;35(4):413-9
references.pmid: 9643055
references.citation: J Cogn Neurosci. 1995 Spring;7(2):133-43
references.pmid: 23961819
references.citation: Neuroimage. 2001 Sep;14(3):607-16
references.pmid: 11506534
references.citation: Clin Neurophysiol. 2007 Oct;118(10):2128-48
references.pmid: 17573239
references.citation: Neurosci Lett. 2001 Apr 6;301(3):179-82
references.pmid: 11257427
references.citation: Psychol Bull. 1999 Nov;125(6):826-59
references.pmid: 10589304
references.citation: Clin Neurophysiol. 2007 Dec;118(12):2544-90
references.pmid: 17931964
references.citation: Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1975 Apr;38(4):387-401
references.pmid: 46819
references.citation: J Cogn Neurosci. 2006 Dec;18(12):1959-72
references.pmid: 17129184
references.citation: Nature. 1997 Jan 30;385(6615):432-4
references.pmid: 9009189
references.citation: J Acoust Soc Am. 1997 Jan;101(1):503-13
references.pmid: 9000741
references.citation: Neuropsychologia. 1971 Mar;9(1):97-113
references.pmid: 5146491
references.citation: J Acoust Soc Am. 1996 Oct;100(4 Pt 1):2471-85
references.pmid: 8865652
references.citation: Neuroscientist. 2005 Dec;11(6):563-76
references.pmid: 16282597
references.citation: Psychophysiology. 2001 Jan;38(1):1-21
references.pmid: 11321610
references.citation: Neuroreport. 1997 Mar 3;8(4):919-24
references.pmid: 9141065
references.citation: Psychophysiology. 1999 Sep;36(5):638-42
references.pmid: 10442032
references.citation: Brain Res Cogn Brain Res. 2004 Jul;20(2):300-8
references.pmid: 15183401
references.citation: Neurosci Lett. 2001 Sep 21;311(1):37-40
references.pmid: 11585562
references.citation: Biol Psychol. 1982 Feb-Mar;14(1-2):53-98
references.pmid: 7104425
references.citation: Int J Med Sci. 2005;2(4):147-54
references.pmid: 16239953
references.citation: Neuroreport. 2002 Mar 25;13(4):521-5
references.pmid: 11930174
references.citation: Lang Speech. 1997 Apr-Jun;40 ( Pt 2):141-201
references.pmid: 9509577
references.citation: Acta Psychol (Amst). 1978 Jul;42(4):313-29
references.pmid: 685709
references.citation: Neuroreport. 2015 Sep 9;26(13):791-6
references.pmid: 26164606