Literature DB >> 10830391

Neurophysiologic correlates of cross-language phonetic perception.

A Sharma1, M F Dorman.   

Abstract

This study examined neurophysiologic correlates of the perception of native and nonnative phonetic categories. Behavioral and electrophysiologic responses were obtained from Hindi and English listeners in response to a stimulus continuum of naturally produced, bilabial CV stimuli that differed in VOT from -90 to 0 ms. These speech sounds constitute phonemically relevant categories in Hindi but not in English. As expected, the native Hindi listeners identified the stimuli as belonging to two distinct phonetic categories (/ba/ and /pa/) and were easily able to discriminate a stimulus pair across these categories. On the other hand, English listeners discriminated the same stimulus pair at a chance level. In the electrophysiologic experiment N1 and MMN cortical evoked potentials (considered neurophysiologic indices of stimulus processing) were measured. The changes in N1 latency which reflected the duration of pre-voicing across the stimulus continuum were not significantly different for Hindi and English listeners. On the other hand, in response to the /ba/-/pa/ stimulus contrast, a robust MMN was seen only in Hindi listeners and not in English listeners. These results suggest that neurophysiologic levels of stimulus processing reflected by the MMN and N1 are differentially altered by linguistic experience.

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 10830391     DOI: 10.1121/1.428655

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am        ISSN: 0001-4966            Impact factor:   1.840


  46 in total

1.  You had me at "Hello": Rapid extraction of dialect information from spoken words.

Authors:  Mathias Scharinger; Philip J Monahan; William J Idsardi
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2011-04-12       Impact factor: 6.556

2.  Plasticity of the human auditory cortex induced by discrimination learning of non-native, mora-timed contrasts of the Japanese language.

Authors:  Hans Menning; Satoshi Imaizumi; Pienie Zwitserlood; Christo Pantev
Journal:  Learn Mem       Date:  2002 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 2.460

3.  The Development of English Vowel Perception in Monolingual and Bilingual Infants: Neurophysiological Correlates.

Authors:  Valerie L Shafer; Yan H Yu; Hia Datta
Journal:  J Phon       Date:  2011-10-01

4.  Discrimination of speech stimuli based on neuronal response phase patterns depends on acoustics but not comprehension.

Authors:  Mary F Howard; David Poeppel
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2010-05-19       Impact factor: 2.714

5.  The influence of meaning on the perception of speech sounds.

Authors:  Nina Kazanina; Colin Phillips; William Idsardi
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2006-07-18       Impact factor: 11.205

6.  Mismatch negativity to pitch contours is influenced by language experience.

Authors:  Bharath Chandrasekaran; Ananthanarayan Krishnan; Jackson T Gandour
Journal:  Brain Res       Date:  2006-11-27       Impact factor: 3.252

7.  Relative influence of musical and linguistic experience on early cortical processing of pitch contours.

Authors:  Bharath Chandrasekaran; Ananthanarayan Krishnan; Jackson T Gandour
Journal:  Brain Lang       Date:  2008-03-17       Impact factor: 2.381

8.  Right-hemisphere auditory cortex is dominant for coding syllable patterns in speech.

Authors:  Daniel A Abrams; Trent Nicol; Steven Zecker; Nina Kraus
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2008-04-09       Impact factor: 6.167

9.  Phoneme discrimination and mismatch negativity in English and Japanese speakers.

Authors:  Marie D Bomba; David Choly; Elizabeth W Pang
Journal:  Neuroreport       Date:  2011-07-13       Impact factor: 1.837

10.  The representation of voice onset time in the cortical auditory evoked potentials of young children.

Authors:  Katrina Agung King; Julia Campbell; Anu Sharma; Kathryn Martin; Michael Dorman; Justin Langran
Journal:  Clin Neurophysiol       Date:  2008-11-05       Impact factor: 3.708

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.