Phonological representations are unconsciously used when processing complex, non-speech signals

PLoS ONE

Volumn 3, Issue 4, 2008, Pages

  Azadpour, Mahan ^a   Balaban, Evan ^a,b  

^a SISSA   (Italy)

^b MCGILL UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACOUSTICS; ARTICLE; CONSONANT; CONTROLLED STUDY; DISCRIMINATIVE STIMULUS; EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; NORMAL HUMAN; PHONETICS; SOUND DETECTION; SOUND INTENSITY; SPEECH ANALYSIS; SPEECH DISCRIMINATION; SPEECH PERCEPTION; STIMULUS RESPONSE; TASK PERFORMANCE; UNCONSCIOUSNESS; VOWEL; AUDITORY STIMULATION; EVOKED AUDITORY RESPONSE; FEMALE; HEARING; ITALY; LANGUAGE; LINGUISTICS; MALE; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; SPEECH; SPEECH AUDIOMETRY;

ACOUSTIC STIMULATION; ACOUSTICS; AUDITORY PERCEPTION; EVOKED POTENTIALS, AUDITORY; FEMALE; HUMANS; ITALY; LANGUAGE; LINGUISTICS; MALE; PHONETICS; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; SPEECH; SPEECH DISCRIMINATION TESTS; SPEECH PERCEPTION;

EID: 44849117280     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19326203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0001966     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Scott SK, Blank CC, Rosen S, Wise RJ (2000) Identification of a pathway for intelligible speech in the left temporal lobe. Brain 123: 2400-2406.
2. Narain C, Scott SK, Wise RJ, Rosen S, Leff A, et al. (2003) Defining a left-lateralized response specific to intelligible speech using fMRI. Cerebral Cortex 13: 1362-1368.
3. Scott SK, Wise RJ (2004) The functional neuroanatomy of prelexical processing in speech perception. Cognition 92: 13-45.
4. Dehaene-Lambertz G, Pallier C, Semiclaes W, Sprenger-Charolles L, Jobert A, Dehaene S (2005) Neural correlates of switching from auditory to speech perception. NeuroImage 24: 21-33.
5. Pulvermüller F, Huss M, Kherif F, Moscoso del Prado Martin F, Hauk O, Shtyrov Y (2006) Motor cortex maps articulatory features of speech sounds. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 103: 7865-7870.
6. Obleser J, Scott SK, Eulitz C (2006) Now you hear it, now you don't: transient traces of consonants and their nonspeech analogues in the human brain. Cerebral Cortex 16: 1069-1076.
7. Scott SK, Rosen S, Lang H, Wise RJ (2006) Neural correlates of intelligibility in speech investigated with noise vocoded speech-a positron emission tomography study. J Acoust Soc Amer 120: 1075-1083.
8. Blesser B (1972) Speech perception under conditions of spectral transformation. J Speech Hear Res 15: 5-41.
9. Rosen S, Finn R, Faulkner A (2002) Plasticity in speech perception: spectrally-rotated speech, revisited. ARO Abstracts 25: 50-51.
10. Wright R (2004) A review of perceptual cues and cue rubustness. In: Hayes B, Kircher RM, Steriade D, eds (2004) Phonetically Based Phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp 34-57.
11. Siegel S, Castellan NJ (1988) Nonparametric statistics, 2nd Edition. New York: McGraw-Hill.
12. Manly BFJ (1997) Randomization, bootstrap and Monte Carlo methods in biology. London: Chapman & Hall/CRC.
13. Peterson GE, Barney HL (1952) Control meyhods used in a study of the vowels. J Acoust Soc Amer 24: 175-184.
14. Fava I, Caldognetto EM (1976) Studio sperimentale delle caratteristiche elettroacustiche delle vocali toniche ed atone in bisillabi italiani. In: Simone R, Vignuzzi U, Ruggiero G, eds (1976) Studi di fonetica e fonologia. Rome: Bulzoni. pp 35-79.
15. Maurer D, D'Heureuse C, Landis T (2000) Formant pattern ambiguity of vowel sounds. Int J Neurosci 100: 39-76.
16. Liberman AM, Mattingly IG (1989) A specialization for speech perception. Science 243: 489-494.
17. Whalen DH, Benson RR, Richardson M, Swainson B, Clark VP, et al. (2006) J Acoust Soc Amer 119: 575-581.
18. Boersma P, Weenink D (downloaded april 2006) Praat: doing phonetics by computer. Version 4.1.10. http://www.praat.org.