Are women more influenced than men by top-down semantic information when listening to disrupted speech?

Language and Speech

Volumn 54, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 33-48

  Liederman, Jacqueline ^a   Gilbert, Kristen ^a   Fisher, Janet McGraw ^a   Mathews, Geetha ^a   Frye, Richard E ^b   Joshi, Pallavi ^a  

^a BOSTON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS   (United States)

Author keywords

lexical ambiguity; phonemic restoration; retroactive cues; sex differences; speech in noise; top down bottom up interactions

Indexed keywords

EID: 79953031229     PISSN: 00238309     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0023830910388000     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Allito, H.J., and Usrey, W.M. (2003). Corticothalamic feedback and sensory processing. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 13(4), 440-445.
2. Bailey, T.M., and Hahn, U. (2005). Phoneme similarity and confusability. Journal of Memory and Language, 52(3), 339-362.
3. Bard, E.G., Shillcock, R.C., and Altmann, G.T. (1988). The recognition of words after their acoustic offsets in spontaneous speech: Effects of subsequent context. Perception and Psychophysics, 44(5), 395-408.
4. Bashford, J.A., Warren, R.M., and Brown, C.A. (1996). Use of speech-modulated noise adds strong "bottom-up" cues for phonemic restoration. Perception and Psychophysics, 58, 342-350.
5. Beeman, M.J., and Chiarello, C. (1998). Complementary right- and left-hemisphere language comprehension. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 7(1), 2-8.
6. Chen, C., Xue, G., Dong, Q., Jin, Z., Li, T., Xue, F., Zhao, L., and Guo, Y. (2007). Sex determines the neurofunctional predictors of visual word learning. Neuropsychologia, 45(4), 741-747.
7. Davis, M., and Johnsrude, I. (2007). Hearing speech sounds: Top-down influences on the interface between audition and speech perception. Hearing Research, 229, 132-147.
8. Dong, Q., Mei, L., Xue, G., Chen, C., Li, T., Xue, F., and Huang, S. (2008). Sex-dependent neurofunctional predictors of long-term maintenance of visual word learning. Neuroscience Letters, 430(2), 87-91.
9. Dubno, J.R., Ahlstrom, J.B., and Horwitz, A.R. (2000). Use of context by young and aged adults with normal hearing. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 107(1), 528-546.
10. Duncan, J., Humphreys, G., and Ward, R. (1997). Competitive brain activity in visual attention. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 7, 255-261.
11. Elias, G., and Broerse, J. (1992). Local and global aspects of temporal patterning in the conversation of adults. British Journal of Social Psychology, 31, 57-68.
12. Faust, M., Kravetz, S., and Babkoff, H. (1993). Hemisphericity and top-down processing of language. Brain and Language, 41, 1-18.
13. Frye, R., Fisher, J., Witzel, T., Ahlfors, S.P., Swank, P., Liederman, J., and Halgren, E. (2008). Objective phonological and subjective perceptual characteristics of syllables modulate spatiotemporal patterns of superior temporal gyrus activity. Neuroimage, 40(4), 1888-1901.
14. Grant, K.W., and Seitz, P.F. (2000). The recognition of isolated words and words in sentences: Individual variability in the use of sentence context. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 107(2), 1000-1011.
15. Gur, R.C., Turetsky, B.I., Matsui, M., Yan, M., Bilker, W., Hughett, P., and Gur, R.E. (1999). Sex differences in brain gray and white matter in healthy young adults: Correlations with cognitive performance. Journal of Neuroscience, 19(10), 4065-4072.
16. Hannemann, R., Obleser, J., and Eulitz, C. (2007). Top-down knowledge supports the retrieval of lexical information from degraded speech. Brain Research, 1153, 134-143.
17. Irwin, J.R., Whalen, D.H., and Fowler, C.A. (2006). A sex difference in visual influences on heard speech. Perception and Psychophysics, 68(4), 582-592.
18. Johnson, F.M., and Leslie, H.H. (1988). Sex differences in lipreading. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 26(2), 106-108.
19. Kalikow, D.N., Stevens, K.N., and Elliot, L.L. (1977). Development of a test of speech intelligibility in noise using sentence materials with controlled word predictability. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 61(5), 1337-1351.
20. Kansaku, K., Yamaura, A., and Kitazawa, S. (2000). Sex differences in lateralization revealed in the posterior language areas. Cerebral Cortex, 10(9), 866-872.
21. Liebenthal, E., Binder, J.R., Piorkowski, R.L., and Remez, R.E. (2003). Short-term reorganization of auditory analysis induced by phonetic experience. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 15, 549-558.
22. Liederman, J., Frye, R., McGraw Fisher, J., Greenwood, K., and Alexander, R. (2005). A temporally dynamic context effect that disrupts voice onset time discrimination of rapidly successive stimuli. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 12(2), 380-386.
23. Liederman, J., McGraw Fisher, J., Coty, A., Matthies, M., Mathews, G., Frye, R.E., and Alexander, R. (2008). Dramatic individual differences in retroactive phonemic restoration/report based on very delayed semantic context. Under review.
24. Marslen-Wilson, W.D. (1985). Speech shadowing and speech comprehension. Speech Communication, 4, 55-73.
25. Phillips, M.D., Lowe, M.J., Lurito, J.T., Dzemidzic, M., and Mathews, V.P. (2001). Temporal lobe activation demonstrates sex-based differences during passive listening. Radiology, 220(1), 202-207.
26. Ruytjens, L., Albers, F., van Dijk, P., Wit, H., and Willemsen, A. (2006). Neural responses to silent lipreading in normal hearing male and female subjects. European Journal of Nuclear of Neuroscience, 24(6), 1835-1844.
27. Samuel, A.G. (1981). Phonemic restoration: Insights from a new methodology. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 110, 474-494.
28. Schneider, W., Eschmann, A., and Zuccolotto, A. (2002). E-Prime user's guide. Pittsburgh, PA: Psychology Software Tools, Inc.
29. Shaywitz, B.A., Shaywitz, S.E., Pugh, K.R., Todd, R., Skudlarski, C.P., Fulbright, R.K., Bronen,. R.A., Fletcher, J.M., Shankweiler, D.P., Katz, L., and Gore, J.C. (1995). Sex differences in the functional organization of the brain for language. Nature, 373, 607-609.
30. Sivonen, P., Maess, B., and Friederici, A. (2006a). Semantic retrieval of spoken words with an obliterated initial phoneme in a sentence context. Neuroscience Letters, 408, 220-225.
31. Sivonen, P., Maess, B., and Friederici, A. (2006b). Phonemic restoration in a sentence context: Evidence from early and late ERP effects. Brain Research, 1121, 177-189.
32. Strelnikov, K., Rouger, J., Lagleyre, B., Fraysse, B., Deguine, O., and Barone, P. (2009). Improvement in speech-reading ability by auditory training: Evidence from gender differences in normally hearing, deaf and cochlear implanted subjects. Neuropsychologia, 47, 972-979.
33. Suga, N., Gao, E., Zhang, Y., Ma, X., and Olsen, J.F. (2000). The corticofugal system for hearing: Recent progress. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 97(22), 11807-11814.
34. Trout, J.D., and Poser, W.J. (1990). Auditory and visual influences on phonemic restoration. Language & Speech, 33, 121-135.
35. Warren, R.M. (1970). Perceptual restoration of missing speech sounds. Science, 167(917), 392-393.
36. Warren, R.M., and Obusek, C.J. (1971). Speech perception and phonemic restorations. Perception and Psychophysics, 9, 358-362.
37. Watson, C., Qiu, W.W., Chamberlain, M.M., and Li, X. (1996). Auditory and visual speech perception: Confirmation of a modality-independent source of individual differences in speech recognition. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 100(2Pt1), 1153-1162.