Neurobiological evidence for abstract phonological representations in the mental lexicon during speech recognition

Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience

Volumn 16, Issue 4, 2004, Pages 577-583

  Eulitz, Carsten ^a   Lahiri, Aditi ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF KONSTANZ   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; EVENT RELATED POTENTIAL; FEMALE; HUMAN; LANGUAGE ABILITY; MALE; MENTAL CAPACITY; MISMATCH NEGATIVITY; NEUROBIOLOGY; PHONETICS; PREDICTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SPEECH ARTICULATION; SPEECH DISCRIMINATION; VERBAL MEMORY; WORD RECOGNITION;

ADULT; AUDITORY PERCEPTION; ELECTROENCEPHALOGRAPHY; EVOKED POTENTIALS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; PSYCHOLINGUISTICS; SPEECH PERCEPTION; VOCABULARY;

EID: 0344995112     PISSN: 0898929X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1162/089892904323057308     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Bybee, J. (2001). Phonology and language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
2. Cowan, N. (1999). An embedded-processes model of working memory. In A. Miyake & P. Shah (Eds.), Models of working memory: mechanisms of active maintenance and executive control. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
3. Eulitz, C., Diesch, E., Pantev, C., Hampson, S., & Elbert, T. (1995). Magnetic and electric brain activity evoked by the processing of tone and vowel stimuli. Journal of Neuroscience, 15, 2748-2755.
4. Fitzpatrick, J., & Wheeldon, L. R. (2002). Phonology and phonetics in psycholinguistic models of speech perception. In N. Buton-Roberts, P. Carr, & G. Docherty (Eds.), Phonological knowledge (pp. 131-159). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
5. Ghini, M. (2001). Asymmetries in the phonology of Miogliola. Berlin: Mouton.
6. Halle, M. (1992). Phonological features. In W. Bright (Ed.), International encyclopedia of linguistics (Vol. 3, pp. 207-212). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
7. Keating, P. A. (1988). Underspecification in phonetics. Phonology, 5, 275-292.
8. Kiparsky, P. (1993). Blocking in nonderived environments. In S. Hargus & E. M. Kaisse (Eds.), Studies in lexical phonology (Vol. 4, pp. 277-314). New York: Academic Press.
9. Klatt, D. H. (1989). Review of selected models of speech perception. In W. D. Marslen-Wilson (Ed.), Lexical representation and process (pp. 162-226). Cambridge: MIT Press.
10. Lahiri, A., & Evers, V. (1991). Palatalization and coronality. In C. Paradis & J.-F. Prunet (Eds.), The special status of coronals: Phonetics and phonology 2 (pp. 79-100). San Diego: Academic Press.
11. Lahiri, A., & Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (1991). The mental representation of lexical form: A phonological approach to the recognition lexicon. Cognition, 38, 245-291.
12. Lahiri, A., & Reetz, H. (2002). Underspecified recognition. In C. Gussenhoven & N. Warner (Eds.), Laboratory phonology 7 (pp. 637-676). Berlin: Mouton.
13. Näätänen, R. (2001). The perception of speech sounds by the human brain as reflected by the mismatch negativity (MMN) and its magnetic equivalent (MMNm). Psychophysiology, 38, 1-21.
14. Näätänen, R., & Alho, K. (1997). Mismatch negativity (MMN) - The measure for central sound representation accuracy. Audiology and Neuro-otology, 2, 341-353.
15. Näätänen, R., Lehtokoski, A., Lennes, M., Cheour, M., Huotilainen, M., Iivonen, A., Vainio, M., Alku, P., Ilmoniemi, R. J., Luuk, A., Allik, J., Sinkkonen, J., & Alho, K. (1997). Language specific phoneme representations revealed by electric and magnetic brain responses. Nature, 385, 432-434.
16. Obleser, J., Elbert, T., Lahiri, A., & Eulitz, C. (2003). Cortical representation of vowels reflects acoustic dissimilarity determined by format frequencies. Cognitive Brain Research, 15, 207-213.
17. Obleser, J., & Eulitz, C. (2002). Extraction of phonological features from spoken vowels is mirrored by the MEG response. Paper presented at the 13th International Conference on Biomagnetism, Jena.
18. Ohala, J., & Ohala, M. (1995). Speech perception and lexical representation: the role of vowel nasalization in Hindi and English. In B. Connell & A. Arvaniti (Eds.), Papers in laboratory phonology IV: Phonology and phonetic evidence (pp. 41-60). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
19. Phillips, C., Pellathy, T., Marantz, A., Yellin, E., Wexler, K., Poeppel, D., McGinnis, M., & Roberts, T. (2000). Auditory cortex accesses phonological categories: An MEG mismatch study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 12, 1038-1055.
20. Picton, T. W., Alain, C., Otten, L., Ritter, W., & Achim, A. (2000). Mismatch negativity: Different water in the same river. Audiology and Neuro-otology, 5, 111-139.
21. Poeppel, D., Yellin, E., Phillips, C., Roberts, T. P., Rowley, H. A., Wexler, K., & Marantz, A. (1996). Task-induced asymmetry of the auditory evoked M100 neuromagnetic field elicited by speech sounds. Cognitive Brain Research, 4, 231-242.
22. Pulvermüller, F., Kujala, T., Shtyrov, Y., Simola, J., Tiitinen, H., Alku, P., Alho, K., Martinkauppi, S., Ilmoniemi, R. J., Näätä nen, R. (2001). Memory traces for words as revealed by the mismatch negativity. Neuroimage, 14, 607-616.
23. Roberts, T. P., Ferrari, P., Stufflebeam, S. M., & Poeppel, D. (2000). Latency of the auditory evoked neuromagnetic field components: Stimulus dependence and insights toward perception. Journal of Clinical Neurophysiology, 17, 114-129.
24. Shtyrov, Y., & Pulvermüller, F. (2002). Neurophysiological evidence of memory traces for words in the human brain. NeuroReport, 13, 521-525.
25. Steriade, D. (2000). Paradigm uniformity and the phonetics-phonology boundary. In M. Broe & J. Pierrehumbert (Eds.), Papers in laboratory phonology V: Acquisition and the lexicon (pp. 313-334). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
26. van der Hulst, H., & van de Weijer, J. (1995). Vowel harmony. In J. A. Goldsmith (Ed.), The handbook of phonological theory (pp. 495-534). Oxford: Blackwell.
27. Winkler, I., Lehtokoski, A., Alku, P., Vainio, M., Czigler, I., Csepe, V., Aaltonen, O., Raimo, I., Alho, K., Lang, H., Iivonen, A., & Näätänen, R. (1999). Pre-attentive detection of vowel contrasts utilizes both phonetic and auditory memory representations. Cognitive Brain Research, 7, 357-369.