Imitation improves language comprehension

Psychological Science

Volumn 21, Issue 12, 2010, Pages 1903-1909

  Adank, Patti ^a,b   Hagoort, Peter ^b,c   Bekkering, Harold ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER   (United Kingdom)

^b RADBOUD UNIVERSITY NIJMEGEN   (Netherlands)

^c MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE FOR PSYCHOLINGUISTICS   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

cognitive processes; language; learning; motor processes; speech perception

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ARTICLE; COMPREHENSION; FEMALE; HUMAN; IMITATION; LANGUAGE; LANGUAGE TEST; MALE; SPEECH; SPEECH PERCEPTION;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; COMPREHENSION; FEMALE; HUMANS; IMITATIVE BEHAVIOR; LANGUAGE; LANGUAGE TESTS; MALE; SPEECH; SPEECH PERCEPTION; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 78650375944     PISSN: 09567976     EISSN: 14679280     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0956797610389192     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Adank, P., Evans, B.G., Stuart-Smith, J., & Scott, S.K. (2009). Familiarity with a regional accent facilitates comprehension of that accent in noise. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 35, 520-529.
2. Adank, P., & Janse, E. (2010). Comprehension of a novel accent by young and older listeners. Psychology and Aging, 25, 736-740.
3. Adank, P., van Hout, R., & Van de Velde, H. (2007). An acoustic description of the vowels of Northern and Southern Standard Dutch II: Regional varieties. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 121, 1130-1141.
4. Baker, R.J., & Rosen, S. (2001). Evaluation of maximum-likelihood threshold estimation with tone-in-noise masking. British Journal of Audiology, 35, 43-52.
5. Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
6. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
7. Best, C.T., McRoberts, G.W., & Goodell, E. (2001). Discrimination of non-native consonant contrasts varying in perceptual assimilation to the listener's native phonological system. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 109, 775-794.
8. Brass, M., Wohlsläger, A., Bekkering, H., & Prinz, W. (2000). Compatibility between observed and executed finger movements: Comparing symbolic, spatial, and imitative cues. Brain and Cognition, 44, 124-143.
9. Chartrand, T.L., & Bargh, J.A. (1999). The chameleon effect: The perception-behavior link and social interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 893-910.
10. Chen, M., Chartrand, T.L., Lee-Chai, A.Y., & Bargh, J.A. (1998). Priming primates: Human and otherwise. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 21, 685-686.
11. Delvaux, V., & Soquet, A. (2007). The influence of ambient speech on adult speech productions through unintentional imitation. Phonetica, 64, 145-173.
12. Dubno, J.R., Dirks, D.D., & Morgan, D.E. (1984). Effects of age and mild hearing loss on speech recognition in noise. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 76, 87-96.
13. Floccia, C., Goslin, J., Girard, F., & Konopczynski, G. (2006). Does a regional accent perturb speech processing? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32, 1276-1293.
14. Galantucci, B., Fowler, C.A., & Turvey, M.T. (2006). The motor theory of speech perception reviewed. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13, 361-377.
15. Giles, H., Coupland, J., & Coupland, N. (1992). Accommodation theory: Communication, context, and consequences. In H. Giles, J. Coupland, & N. Coupland (Eds.), Contexts of accommodation (pp. 1-68). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
16. Goldinger, S.D. (1998). Echoes of echoes? An episodic theory of lexical access. Psychological Review, 105, 251-279.
17. Hecht, H., Vogt, S., & Prinz, W. (2001). Motor learning enhances perceptual judgment: A case for perception-action transfer. Psychological Research, 63, 3-14.
18. International Phonetic Association. (1999). Handbook of the International Phonetic Association: A guide to the use of the International Phonetic Alphabet. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
19. Kappes, J., Baumgaertner, A., Peschke, C., & Ziegler, W. (2009). Unintended imitation in nonword repetition. Brain & Language, 111, 140-151.
20. La France, M. (1979). Non-verbal synchrony and rapport: Analysis by the cross-lag panel technique. Social Psychology Quarterly, 42, 66-70.
21. Lakin, J.L., & Chartrand, T.L. (2003). Using nonconscious behavioral mimicry to create affiliation and rapport. Psychological Science, 14, 334-339.
22. Liberman, A.M., Cooper, F.S., Shankweiler, D., & Studdert-Kennedy, M. (1967). Perception of the speech code. Psychological Review, 74, 431-461.
23. Liberman, A.M., & Mattingly, I.G. (1985). The motor theory of speech perception revised. Cognition, 21, 1-36.
24. Mattar, A.A.G., & Gribble, P.L. (2005). Motor learning by observing. Neuron, 46, 153-160.
25. Meltzoff, A.N., & Moore, M.K. (1977). Explaining facial imitation: A theoretical model. Early Development and Parenting, 6, 179-192.
26. Meltzoff, A.N., & Prinz, W. (2002). The imitative mind. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
27. Oztop, E., Wolpert, D., & Kawato, M. (2005). Mental state inference using visual control parameters. Cognitive Brain Research, 22, 129-151.
28. Pickering, M.J., & Garrod, S. (2007). Do people use language production to make predictions during comprehension? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11, 105-110.
29. Plomp, R., & Mimpen, A.M. (1979). Improving the reliability of testing the speech reception threshold for sentences. Audiology, 18, 42-53.
30. Prinz, W. (1992). Why don't we perceive our brain states? European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 4, 1-20.
31. Prinz, W. (1997). Perception and action planning. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 9, 129-154.
32. van Wijngaarden, S.J., Steeneken, H.J., & Houtgast, T. (2002). Quantifying the intelligibility of speech in noise for non-native talkers. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 112, 3004-3013.
33. Vogt, S., & Thomaschke, R. (2007). From visuo-motor interactions to imitation learning: Behavioural and brain imaging studies. Journal of Sports Sciences, 25, 497-517.
34. Wilson, M., & Knoblich, G. (2005). The case for motor involvement in perceiving conspecifics. Psychological Bulletin, 131, 460-473.
35. Wolpert, D.M., Ghahramani, Z., & Jordan, M.I. (1995). An internal model for sensorimotor integration. Science, 269, 1880-1882.