Neuromagnetic evidence for a featural distinction of English consonants: Sensor- and source-space data

Brain and Language

Volumn 116, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 71-82

  Scharinger, Mathias ^a   Merickel, Jennifer ^b   Riley, Joshua ^a   Idsardi, William J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER   (United States)

Author keywords

Asymmetric speech processing; Auditory cortex; Auditory evoked fields; Magnetoencephalography; Mismatch fields; Place of articulation; Underspecification

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AMPLITUDE MODULATION; ARTICLE; AUDITORY CORTEX; CONSONANT; CONTROLLED STUDY; ELECTROENCEPHALOGRAM; EVOKED AUDITORY RESPONSE; EXPERIMENTAL STUDY; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; LANGUAGE PROCESSING; LATENT PERIOD; MAGNETOENCEPHALOGRAPHY; MALE; MISMATCH NEGATIVITY; NEUROIMAGING; PHONETICS; PREDICTION; SPEECH ARTICULATION; STIMULUS RESPONSE;

ACOUSTIC STIMULATION; BRAIN; BRAIN MAPPING; EVOKED POTENTIALS, AUDITORY; FEMALE; HUMANS; LANGUAGE; MAGNETOENCEPHALOGRAPHY; MALE; SPEECH PERCEPTION; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 79251598322     PISSN: 0093934X     EISSN: 10902155     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.bandl.2010.11.002     Document Type: Article

References (83)

1. Ackermann H., Hertrich I., Mathiak K., Lutzenberger W. Contralaterality of cortical auditory processing at the level of the M50/M100 complex and the mismatch field: A whole-head magnetoencephalography study. Neuroreport 2001, 12(8):1683-1687.
2. Baayen H. Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics using R 2008, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
3. Baayen H., Davidson D.J., Bates D.M. Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory & Language 2008, 59(4):390-412.
4. Boersma P., Weenink D. PRAAT: Doing phonetics by computer (ver. 5.1.0) 2009, Institut for Phonetic Sciences, Amsterdam.
5. Boysson-Bardies B., Vihman M.M. Adaptation to language: Evidence from babbling and first words in four languages. Language 1991, 297-319.
6. Chomsky N., Halle M. The sound pattern of English 1968, Harper and Row, New York.
7. de Cheveigné A.D., Simon J.Z. Denoising based on time-shift PCA. Journal of Neuroscience Methods 2007, 165(2):297-305.
8. de Cheveigné A.D., Simon J.Z. Sensor noise suppression. Journal of Neuroscience Methods 2008, 168(1):195-202.
9. Dhanjal N.S., Handunnetthi L., Patel M.C., Wise R.J.S. Perceptual systems controlling speech production. Journal of Neuroscience 2008, 28(40):9969-9975.
10. Diesch E., Eulitz C., Hampson S., Ross B. The neurotopography of vowels as mirrored by evoked magnetic field measurements. Brain and Language 1996, 53(2):143-168.
11. Diesch E., Luce T. Magnetic fields elicited by tones and vowel formants reveal tonotopy and nonlinear summation of cortical activation. Psychophysiology 1997, 34(5):501-510.
12. Diesch E., Luce T. Topographic and temporal indices of vowel spectral envelope extraction in the human auditory cortex. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 2000, 12(5):878-893.
13. Dorman M.F., Loizou P.C. Relative spectral change and formant transitions as cues to labial and alveolar place of articulation. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 1996, 100:3825-3830.
14. Eulitz C., Lahiri A. Neurobiological evidence for abstract phonological representations in the mental lexicon during speech recognition. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 2004, 16(4):577-583.
15. Friedrich C., Lahiri A., Eulitz C. Neurophysiological evidence for underspecified lexical representations: Asymmetries with word initial variations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance 2008, 34(6):1545-1559.
16. Friedrich C.K. Neurophysiological correlates of mismatch in lexical access. BMC Neuroscience 2005, 6:64.
17. Gage N., Poeppel D., Roberts T.P., Hickok G. Auditory evoked M100 reflects onset acoustics of speech sounds. Brain Research 1998, 814(1-2):236-239.
18. Ghini M. Asymmetries in the phonology of miogliola 2001, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin.
19. Halle M. On the origin of the distinctive features. International Journal of Slavic Linguistics and Poetics 1983, 27(Supplement):77-86.
20. Huotilainen M., Tiitinen H., Lavikainen J., Ilmoniemi R.J., Pekkonen E., Sinkkonen J., et al. Sustained fields of tones and glides reflect tonotopy of the auditory cortex. NeuroReport 1995, 6(6):841-844.
21. Jongman A., Wayland R., Wong S. Acoustic characteristics of English fricatives. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 2000, 108:1252-1263.
22. Ladefoged P. A course in phonetics 2001, Harcourt College Publishers, Fort Worth. 4. ed.
23. Lahiri A., Marslen-Wilson W.D. The mental representation of lexical form: A phonological approach to the recognition lexicon. Cognition 1991, 38:245-294.
24. Lahiri A., Reetz H. Underspecified recognition. Laboratory phonology VII 2002, 637-677. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin. C. Gussenhoven, N. Warner (Eds.).
25. Lahiri A., Reetz H. Distinctive features: Phonological underspecification in representation and processing. Journal of Phonetics 2010, 38:44-59.
26. Langner G., Sams M., Heil P., Schulze H. Frequency and periodicity are represented in orthogonal maps in the human auditory cortex: Evidence from magnetoencephalography. Journal of Comparative Physiology A: Neuroethology, Sensory, Neural and Behavioral Physiology 1997, 181(6):665-676.
27. Macmillan N.A., Creelman C.D. Detection theory: A user's guide 2005, Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.
28. MacNeilage P.F., Davis B.L., Matyear C.L. Babbling and first words: Phonetic similarities and differences. Speech Communication 1997, 22(2-3):269-277.
29. Mäkelä A.M., Alku P., Tiitinen H. The auditory N1m reveals the left-hemispheric representation of vowel identity in humans. Neuroscience Letters 2003, 353(2):111-114.
30. Menning H., Zwitserlood P., Schöning S., Hihn H., Bölte J., Dobel C., et al. Pre-attentive detection of syntactic and semantic errors. Neuroreport 2005, 16(1):77-80.
31. Monahan P., Idsardi W.J. Auditory sensitivity to formant ratios: Toward an account of vowel normalization. Language and Cognitive Process 2010, 25(6):808-839.
32. Näätänen R. The perception of speech sounds by the human brain as reflected by the mismatch negativity (MMN) and its magnetic equivalent (MMNm). Psychophysiology 2001, 38:1-21.
33. Näätänen R., Alho K. Mismatch negativity (MMN) - The measure for central sound representation accuracy. Audiology and Neurotology 1997, 2:341-353.
34. Näätänen R., Lehtokoski A., Lennes M., Cheour M., Huotilainen M., Ilvonen A., et al. Language-specific phoneme representations revealed by electric and magnetic brain responses. Nature 1997, 385:432-434.
35. Näätänen R., Paavilainen P., Rinne T., Alho K. The mismatch negativity (MMN) in basic research of central auditory processing: A review. Clinical Neurophysiology 2007, 118(12):2544-2590.
36. Näätänen R., Picton T. The N1 wave of the human electric and magnetic response to sound: A review and an analysis of the component structure. Psychophysiology 1987, 24(4):375-425.
37. Näätänen R., Winkler I. The concept of auditory stimulus presentation in cognitive neuroscience. Psychological Bulletin 1999, 125:826-859.
38. Obleser J., Elbert T., Eulitz C. Attentional influences on functional mapping of speech sounds in human auditory cortex. BMC Neuroscience 2004, 5(1):24. 10.1186/1471-2202-5-24.
39. Obleser J., Elbert T., Lahiri A., Eulitz C. Cortical representation of vowels reflects acoustic dissimilarity determined by formant frequencies. Cognitive Brain Research 2003, 15(3):207-213.
40. Obleser J., Lahiri A., Eulitz C. Auditory-evoked magnetic field codes place of articulation in timing and topography around 100 milliseconds post syllable onset. Neuroimage 2003, 20:1839-1847.
41. Obleser J., Lahiri A., Eulitz C. Magnetic brain response mirrors extraction of phonological features from spoken vowels. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 2004, 16(1):31-39.
42. Obleser J., Scott S.K., Eulitz C. Now you hear it, now you don't: Transient traces of consonants and their unintelligible analogues in the human brain. Cerebral Cortex 2006, 16(8):1069-1076.
43. Öehman S.E.G. Coarticulation in VCV utterances: Spectrographic measurements. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 1966, 39(1):151-168.
44. Oldfield R.C. The assessment and analysis of handedness: The Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia 1971, 9:97-113.
45. Pantev C., Hoke M., Lehnertz K., Lütkenhöner B., Anogianakis G., Wittkowski W. Tonotopic organization of the human auditory cortex revealed by transient auditory evoked magnetic fields. Electroencephalography & Clinical Neurophysiology 1988, 69:160-170.
46. Pantev C., Hoke M., Lutkenhoner B., Lehnertz K. Tonotopic organization of the auditory cortex: Pitch versus frequency representation. Science 1989, 246(4929):486-488.
47. Phillips C., Pellathy T., Marantz A., Yellin E., Wexler K., Poeppel D., et al. Auditory cortex accesses phonological categories: An MEG mismatch study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 2000, 12:1038-1105.
48. Picard C., Olivier A. Sensory cortical tongue representation in man. Journal of Neurosurgery 1983, 59:781-789.
49. Pinheiro, J. C., & Bates, D. M. (2000). Mixed-effects models in S and S-PLUS. Springer Verlag.
50. Poeppel D., Idsardi W.J., van Wassenhove V. Speech perception at the interface of neurobiology and linguistics. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society London 2008, 363(1493):1071-1086.
51. Poeppel D., Marantz A. Cognitive neuroscience of speech processing. Image, language, brain 2000, 29-50. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. A. Marantz, Y. Miyashita, W. O'Neil (Eds.).
52. Poeppel D., Yellin E., Phillips C., Roberts T.P., Rowley H.A., Wexler K., et al. Task-induced asymmetry of the auditory evoked M100 neuromagnetic field elicited by speech sounds. Cognitive Brain Research 1996, 4(4):231-242.
53. Pulvermüller F., Kujala T., Shtyrov Y., Simola J., Tiitinen H., Alku P., et al. Memory traces for words as revealed by the mismatch negativity. Neuroimage 2001, 14:607-616.
54. Pulvermüller F., Shtyrov Y. Language outside the focus of attention: The mismatch negativity as a tool for studying higher cognitive processes. Progress in Neurobiology 2006, 79:49-71.
55. Pulvermüller F., Shtyrov Y., Kujala T., Näätänen R. Word-specific cortical activity as revealed by the mismatch negativity. Psychophysiology 2004, 41:106-112.
56. Reetz H. Automatic speech recognition with features 1998, Unpublished Habilitationsschrift, Universität des Saarlandes, Saarbrücken.
57. Reetz H. Underspecified phonological features for lexical access. Phonus: Reports in Phonetics, Universität des Saarlandes 2000, 5:161-173.
58. Reetz H., Jongman A. Phonetics: Transcription, productions, acoustics and perception 2008, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford.
59. Roberts T.P., Ferrari P., Poeppel D. Latency of evoked neuromagnetic M100 reflects perceptual and acoustic stimulus attributes. Neuroreport 1998, 9(14):3265-3269.
60. Roberts T.P., Poeppel D. Latency of auditory evoked M100 as a function of tone frequency. Neuroreport 1996, 7(6):1138-1140.
61. Sagey, E. (1986). The representation of features and relations in non-linear phonology. Doctoral Dissertation. Cambridge, MA: MIT.
62. Sanders L.D., Newport E.L., Neville H.J. Segmenting nonsense: An event-related potential index of perceived onsets in continuous speech. Nature Neuroscience 2002, 5(7):700-703.
63. Sarvas J. Basic mathematical and electromagnetic concepts of the biomagnetic inverse problem. Physics in Medicine & Biology 1987, 32:11-22.
64. Scharinger M., Eulitz C., Lahiri A. Mismatch negativity effects of alternating vowels in morphologically complex word forms. Journal of Neurolinguistics 2010, 23:383-399.
65. Scherg M., Vajsar J., Picton T.W. A source analysis of the late human auditory evoked field. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 1990, 1:336-355.
66. Shestakova A., Brattico E., Huotilainen M., Galunov V., Soloviev A., Sams M., et al. Abstract phoneme representations in the left temporal cortex: Magnetic mismatch negativity study. Neuroreport 2002, 13(14):1813-1816.
67. Shestakova A., Brattico E., Soloviev A., Klucharev V., Huotilainen M. Orderly cortical representation of vowel categories presented by multiple exemplars. Cognitive Brain Research 2004, 21:342-350.
68. Shtyrov Y., Pulvermüller F. Memory traces for inflectional affixes as shown by mismatch negativity. European Journal of Neuroscience 2002, 15:1085-1091.
69. Shtyrov Y., Pulvermüller F. Neurophysiological evidence of memory traces for words in the human brain. Cognitive Neuroscience and Neuropsychology 2002, 13(4):521-526.
70. Stevens K. On the quantal nature of speech. Journal of Phonetics 1989, 17:3-45.
71. Stevens K., Blumstein S.E. Invariant cues for place of articulation in stop consonants. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 1978, 64:1358-1368.
72. Stevens, K. N. (1998). Acoustic phonetics (Vol. 30). Cambridge, MA; London, England: The MIT Press.
73. Stevens K.N. Toward a model for lexical access based on acoustic landmarks and distinctive features. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 2002, 111:1872-1891.
74. Stevens K.N. Features in speech perception and lexical access. The handbook of speech perception 2005, 125-156. Blackwell, Oxford. D.B. Pisoni, R.E. Remez (Eds.).
75. Tanriverdi T., Al-Jehani H., Poulin N., Olivier A. Functional results of electrical cortical stimulation of the lower sensory strip. Journal of Clinical Neuroscience 2009, 16:1188-1194.
76. Tavabi K., Obleser J., Dobel C., Pantev C. Auditory evoked fields differentially encode speech features: An MEG investigation of the P50m and N100m time courses during syllable processing. European Journal of Neuroscience 2007, 25:3155-3162.
77. Tiitinen H., Alho K., Huotilainen M., Ilmoniemi R.J., Simola J., Näätänen R. Tonotopic auditory cortex and the magnetoencephalographic (MEG) equivalent of the mismatch negativity. Psychophysiology 1993, 30(5):537-540.
78. Vihman M.M. Phonological development from babbling to speech: Common tendencies and individual differences. Applied Psycholinguistics 1986, 7(1):3-40.
79. Wheeldon L., Waksler R. Phonological underspecification and mapping mechanisms in the speech recognition lexicon. Brain and Language 2004, 90:401-412.
80. Winkler I., Lehtokoski A., Alku P., Vainio M., Czigler I., Csepe V., et al. Pre-attentive detection of vowel contrasts utilizes both phonetic and auditory memory representations. Cognitive Brain Research 1999, 7(3):357-369.
81. Winters S.J. Testing the relative salience of audio and visual cues for stop place of articulation. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 1999, 106:2271.
82. Woods D.L., Alain C., Covarrubias D., Zaidel O. Middle latency auditory evoked potentials to tones of different frequencies. Hearing Research 1995, 85:69-75.
83. Woods D.L., Elmasian R. The habituation of event-related potentials to speech sounds and tones. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology 1986, 65(6):447-459.