Literature DB >> 25092949

Neural Systems Underlying Perceptual Adjustment to Non-Standard Speech Tokens.

Emily B Myers1, Laura M Mesite2.   

Abstract

It has long been noted that listeners use top-down information from context to guide perception of speech sounds. A recent line of work employing a phenomenon termed 'perceptual learning for speech' shows that listeners use top-down information to not only resolve the identity of perceptually ambiguous speech sounds, but also to adjust perceptual boundaries in subsequent processing of speech from the same talker. Even so, the neural mechanisms that underlie this process are not well understood. Of particular interest is whether this type of adjustment comes about because of a retuning of sensitivities to phonetic category structure early in the neural processing stream or whether the boundary shift results from decision-related or attentional mechanisms further downstream. In the current study, neural activation was measured using fMRI as participants categorized speech sounds that were perceptually shifted as a result of exposure to these sounds in lexically-unambiguous contexts. Sensitivity to lexically-mediated shifts in phonetic categorization emerged in right hemisphere frontal and middle temporal regions, suggesting that the perceptual learning for speech phenomenon relies on the adjustment of perceptual criteria downstream from primary auditory cortex. By the end of the session, this same sensitivity was seen in left superior temporal areas, which suggests that a rapidly-adapting system may be accompanied by more slowly evolving shifts in regions of the brain related to phonetic processing.

Entities:  

Year:  2014        PMID: 25092949      PMCID: PMC4118215          DOI: 10.1016/j.jml.2014.06.007

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Mem Lang        ISSN: 0749-596X            Impact factor:   3.059


  49 in total

1.  Native Italian speakers' perception and production of English vowels.

Authors:  J E Flege; I R MacKay; D Meador
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1999-11       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  Adaptation to speaker's voice in right anterior temporal lobe.

Authors:  Pascal Belin; Robert J Zatorre
Journal:  Neuroreport       Date:  2003-11-14       Impact factor: 1.837

3.  Perceptual learning in speech: stability over time.

Authors:  Frank Eisner; James M McQueen
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2006-04       Impact factor: 1.840

4.  Lexical neighborhood effects in phonetic processing.

Authors:  R S Newman; J R Sawusch; P A Luce
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  1997-06       Impact factor: 3.332

5.  Automatic phoneme category selectivity in the dorsal auditory stream.

Authors:  Mark A Chevillet; Xiong Jiang; Josef P Rauschecker; Maximilian Riesenhuber
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2013-03-20       Impact factor: 6.167

6.  Impairment of voice and face recognition in patients with hemispheric damage.

Authors:  D R Van Lancker; G J Canter
Journal:  Brain Cogn       Date:  1982-04       Impact factor: 2.310

7.  Inferior frontal regions underlie the perception of phonetic category invariance.

Authors:  Emily B Myers; Sheila E Blumstein; Edward Walsh; James Eliassen
Journal:  Psychol Sci       Date:  2009-06-08

8.  Lexical influences on speech perception: a Granger causality analysis of MEG and EEG source estimates.

Authors:  David W Gow; Jennifer A Segawa; Seppo P Ahlfors; Fa-Hsuan Lin
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2008-07-25       Impact factor: 6.556

9.  An fMRI examination of the effects of acoustic-phonetic and lexical competition on access to the lexical-semantic network.

Authors:  Domenic Minicucci; Sara Guediche; Sheila E Blumstein
Journal:  Neuropsychologia       Date:  2013-06-28       Impact factor: 3.139

10.  On-line plasticity in spoken sentence comprehension: Adapting to time-compressed speech.

Authors:  Patti Adank; Joseph T Devlin
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2009-07-24       Impact factor: 6.556

View more
  12 in total

1.  Lexically guided perceptual tuning of internal phonetic category structure.

Authors:  Julia R Drouin; Rachel M Theodore; Emily B Myers
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2016-10       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  Lexically guided perceptual learning is robust to task-based changes in listening strategy.

Authors:  Julia R Drouin; Rachel M Theodore
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2018-08       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  Lexical Information Guides Retuning of Neural Patterns in Perceptual Learning for Speech.

Authors:  Sahil Luthra; João M Correia; Dave F Kleinschmidt; Laura Mesite; Emily B Myers
Journal:  J Cogn Neurosci       Date:  2020-07-14       Impact factor: 3.225

4.  Voice-sensitive brain networks encode talker-specific phonetic detail.

Authors:  Emily B Myers; Rachel M Theodore
Journal:  Brain Lang       Date:  2016-11-27       Impact factor: 2.381

5.  Perceptual learning of multiple talkers: Determinants, characteristics, and limitations.

Authors:  Shawn N Cummings; Rachel M Theodore
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2022-09-08       Impact factor: 2.157

6.  Neural Representation of Articulable and Inarticulable Novel Sound Contrasts: The Role of the Dorsal Stream.

Authors:  David I Saltzman; Emily B Myers
Journal:  Neurobiol Lang (Camb)       Date:  2020-08

7.  Perceptual learning of degraded speech by minimizing prediction error.

Authors:  Ediz Sohoglu; Matthew H Davis
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2016-03-08       Impact factor: 11.205

8.  Listeners are initially flexible in updating phonetic beliefs over time.

Authors:  David Saltzman; Emily Myers
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2021-03-19

9.  Individual Differences in Lexical Contributions to Speech Perception.

Authors:  Nikole Giovannone; Rachel M Theodore
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2021-02-19       Impact factor: 2.297

10.  Listeners are maximally flexible in updating phonetic beliefs over time.

Authors:  David Saltzman; Emily Myers
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2018-04
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.