Influence of phonological expectations during a phoneme deletion task: Evidence from event-related brain potentials

Psychophysiology

Volumn 40, Issue 4, 2003, Pages 640-647

  Newman, Randy Lynn ^a   Connolly, John F ^a,b   Service, E ^a,c   McIvor, K ^a  

^a DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^b DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^c UNIVERSITY OF HELSINKI   (Finland)

Author keywords

Event related potentials; Evoked potentials; Language; Phonological mismatch negativity; Phonological processing; Speech recognition

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BRAIN; CONTROLLED STUDY; DATA ANALYSIS; EVENT RELATED POTENTIAL; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; LINGUISTICS; MALE; PHONEME; PHONETICS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SPEECH; SPEECH ARTICULATION; STIMULUS;

ADULT; BRAIN MAPPING; ELECTROENCEPHALOGRAPHY; EVENT-RELATED POTENTIALS, P300; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; SPEECH PERCEPTION;

EID: 0037481678     PISSN: 00485772     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/1469-8986.00065     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Connolly, J. F., Bryne, J. M., & Dywan, C. A. (1995). Assessing adult receptive vocabulary with event-related potentials: An investigation ofDalhousie University cross-modal and cross-modal priming. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 17, 548-565.
2. Connolly, J. F., & Phillips, N. A. (1994). Event-related potential components reflect phonological and semantic processing of the terminal word of spoken sentences. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 6, 256-266.
3. Connolly, J. F., Phillips, N. A., Stewart, S. H., & Brake, W. G. (1992). Event-related potential sensitivity to acoustic and semantic properties of terminal words in sentences. Brain and Language, 43, 1-18.
4. Connolly, J. F., Service, E., D'Arcy, R. C. N., Kujala, A., & Alho, K. (2001). Phonological aspects of word recognition as revealed by high-resolution spatio-temporal brain mapping. NeuroReport, 12, 237-243.
5. Connolly, J. F., Stewart, S. H., & Phillips, N. A. (1990). The effects of processing requirements on neuropsychological responses to spoken sentences. Brain and Language, 39, 302-318.
6. Greenhouse, S. W., & Geisser, S. (1959). On methods in the analysis of profile data. Psychometrika, 24, 95-112.
7. Hagoort, P., & Brown, C. N. (2000). ERP effects of listening to speech: Semantic ERP effects. Neuropsychologia, 38, 1518-1530.
8. Hutcherson, R. W., Dirks, D. D., & Morgan, D. E. (1979). Evaluation of the Speech Perception in Noise (SPIN) Test. Otolaryngology Head Neck Surgery, 87, 239-245.
9. Jasper, H. H. (1958). Report to the committee on methods of clinical examination in electroencephalography. Appendix: The ten-twenty system of the International Federation. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 10, 371-375.
10. Johnson, R. (1986). A triarchic model of P300 amplitude. Psychophysiology, 23, 367-384.
11. Kalikow, D. N., Stevens, K. N., & Elliot, L. L. (1977). Development of a test of speech intelligibility in noise using sentence materials with controlled word predictability. Journal of the Acoustic Society of America, 61, 1337-1351.
12. Kutas, M., & Van Petten, C. K. (1994). Psycholinguistics electrified: Event-related brain potential investigations. In M. A. Gernsbacher (Ed.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 83-143). San Diego, CA: Academic Press, Inc.
13. Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (1987). Functional parallelism in spoken word recognition. Cognition, 25, 71-102.
14. McCarthy, G., & Wood, C. C. (1985). Scalp distribution of event-related brain potentials: An ambiguity associated with analysis of variance models. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 62, 203-208.
15. Norris, D. (1994). Shortlist: A connectionist model of continuous speech recognition. Cognition, 52, 189-234.
16. Norris, D., McQueen, J. M., & Cutler, A. (2000). Merging information in speech recognition: Feedback is never necessary. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23, 299-370.
17. Picton, T. W., Lins, O. G., & Scherg, M. (1995). The recording and analysis of event-related potentials. In F. Boller & J. Grafman (Eds.), Handbook of neuropsychology (pp. 3-73). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
18. Polich, J., & Kok, A. (1995). Cognitive and biological determinants of P300: An integrative review. Biological Psychology, 41, 103-146.
19. Rosner, J., & Simon, D. P. (1971). Auditory Analysis Test: An initial report. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 4, 384-392.
20. Trieman, R., Salasoo, A., Slowiaczek, L. M., & Pisoni, D. B. (1982). Effects of syllable structure on adults' phoneme monitoring performance. Research on speech perception progress report no. 8. pp. 63-81). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University, Speech Research Laboratory.
21. van den Brink, D., Brown, C., & Hagoort P. (2001). Electrophysiological evidence for early contextual influences during spoken word recognition: N200 versus N400 effects. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 13, 967-985.
22. Van Petten, C., Coulson, S., Rubin, S., Plante, E., & Parks, M. (1999). Time course of word identification and semantic integration in spoken language. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 25, 394-417.
23. Woodcock, R. W. (1998). Woodcock Diagnostic Reading Battery. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing.