Feedforward and feedback in speech perception: Revisiting analysis by synthesis

Language and Cognitive Processes

Volumn 26, Issue 7, 2011, Pages 935-951

  Poeppel, David ^a   Monahan, Philip J ^b  

^a NEW YORK UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b BASQUE CENTER ON COGNITION   (Spain)

Author keywords

Bayesian; Cognitive neuroscience; Perception

Indexed keywords

ALGORITHM; BAYESIAN LEARNING; COGNITION; HUMAN; NEUROSCIENCE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; SPEECH PERCEPTION; WORD RECOGNITION;

EID: 79960524722     PISSN: 01690965     EISSN: 14640732     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/01690965.2010.493301     Document Type: Review

References (57)

1. Arnal, L. H., Morillon, B., Kell, C. A., & Giraud, A-L. (2009). Dual neural routing of visual facilitation in speech processing. Journal of Neuroscience, 29, 13445-13453.
2. Bar, M. (2004). Visual objects in context. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 5, 617-629.
3. Bar, M. (2007). The proactive brain: Using analogies and associations to generate predictions. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11(7), 280-289.
4. Bar, M. (2009). The proactive brain: Memory for predictions. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 364, 1235-1243.
5. Bar, M., Kassam, K. S., Ghuman, A. S., Boshyan, J., Schmidt, A. M., Dale, A. M., Halgren, E. (2006). Top-down facilitation of visual recognition. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 103(2), 449-454.
6. Bever, T, & Poeppel, D. (in press). Analysis by synthesis: A (re-)emerging program of research for language and vision. Biolinguistics.
7. Calvert, G. A., Campbell, R., & Brammer, M. (2000). Evidence from functional magnetic resonance imaging of crossmodal binding in the human heteromodal cortex. Current Biology, 10, 649-657.
8. Cleary, M., & Pisoni, D. B. (2001). Speech perception and spoken word recognition: Research and theory. In B. Goldstein (Ed.), Handbook of perception (pp. 499-534). Cambridge: Blackwell.
9. Flagg, E. J., Cardy, J. E. O., & Roberts, T. P. L. (2005). MEG detects neural consequences of anomalous nasalization in vowel-consonant pairs. Neuroscience Letters, 397(3), 263-269.
10. Fowler, C. A., & Brown, J. M. (2000). Perceptual parsing of acoustic consequences of velum lowering from information for vowels. Perception & Psychophysics, 62, 21-32.
11. Gaskell, M. G, & Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (1997). Integrating form and meaning: A distributed model of speech perception. Language & Cognitive Processes, 12(5-6), 613-656.
12. Geisler, W. S., & Diehl, R. L. (2003). A Bayesian approach to the evolution of perceptual and cognitive systems. Cognitive Science, 27(3), 379-402.
13. Geisler, W. S., & Kersten, D. (2002). Illusions, perception and Bayes. Nature Neuroscience, 5(6), 508-510.
14. Giard, M. H., & Peronnet, F. (1999). Auditory-visual integration during multimodal object recognition in humans: A behavioral and electrophysiological study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 11(5), 473-490.
15. Grant, K. W., van Wassenhove, V., & Poeppel, D. (2004). Detection of auditory (cross-spectral) and auditory-visual (cross-modal) synchrony. Speech Communication, 44(1-4), 43-53.
16. Guenther, F. H., Ghosh, S. S., & Tourville, J. A. (2006). Neural modeling and imaging of the cortical interactions underlying syllable production. Brain and Language, 96(3), 280-301.
17. Guenther, F. H., Hampson, M., & Johnson, D. (1998). A theoretical investigation of reference frames for the planning of speech movements. Psychological Review, 105, 611-633.
18. Halle, M., & Stevens, K. N. (1959). Analysis by synthesis. In W. Wathen-Dunn & L. E. Woods (Eds.), Proceedings of the seminar on speech compression and processing. USAF Camb. Res. Ctr. 2: Paper D7.
19. Halle, M., & Stevens, K. N. (1962). Speech recognition: A model and a program for research. IRE Transactions of the PGIT, IT-8, 155-159.
20. Hochstein, S., & Ahissar, M. (2002). View from the top: Hierarchies and reverse hierarchies in the visual system. Neuron, 36, 791-804.
21. Hwang, S-O., Monahan, P. J., & Idsardi, W. J. (in press). Underspecification and asymmetries in voicing perception. Phonology.
22. Jakobson, R., Fant, G., & Halle, M. (1952). Preliminaries to speech analysis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
23. Kawato, M. (1999). Internal models for motor control and trajectory planning. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 9(6), 718-727.
24. Kazanina, N., Phillips, C, & Idsardi, W (2006). The influence of meaning on the perception of speech sounds. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 103(30), 11381-11386.
25. Kersten, D., Mamassian, P., & Yuille, A. (2004). Object perception as Bayesian inference. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 271-304.
26. Knill, D. C, & Richards, W (1996). Perception as Bayesian inference. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
27. Ladefoged, P. (1997). Linguistic phonetic descriptions. In W. J. Hardcastle & J. Laver (Eds.), The handbook of phonetic sciences (pp. 589-618). Oxford: Blackwell.
28. Lahiri, A., & Marslen-Wilson, W (1991). The mental representation of lexical form: A phonological approach to the recognition lexicon. Cognition, 38, 245-294.
29. Lahiri, A., & Reetz, H. (2002). Underspecified recognition. In C. Gussenhoven & N. Warner (Eds.), Laboratory phonology (7th ed., pp. 637-675). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
30. Liberman, A. M., Cooper, F. S., Shankweiler, D. P., & Studdert-Kennedy, M. (1967). Perception of the speech code. Psychological Review, 74(6), 431-461.
31. Lombardi, L. (1995). Dahl's Law and privative voice. Linguistic Inquiry, 26, 356-372.
32. Lombardi, L. (1999). Positional faithfulness and voicing assimilation in optimality theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 17, 267-302.
33. MacKay, D. M. (1951). Mindlike behaviour in artefacts. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 2(6), 105-121.
34. Mamassian, P., Landy, M., & Maloney, L. T. (2002). Bayesian modelling of visual perception. In R. P. N. Rao, B. A. Olshausen, & M. S. Lewicki (Eds.), Probabilistic models of the brain (pp. 13-36). Cambrdige, MA: MIT Press.
35. Marslen-Wilson, W G (1987). Functional parallelism in spoken word recognition. Cognition, 25, 71-102.
36. McClelland, J. L., & Elman, J. L. (1986). The TRACE model of speech perception. Cognitive Psychology, 18, 1-86.
37. McGurk, H., & McDonald, J. (1976). Hearing lips and seeing voices. Nature, 264(5588), 746-748.
38. Miller, G A., Galanter, E., & Pribram, K. H. (1960). Plans and the structure of behavior. New York: Holt.
39. Monahan, P. J., Hwang, S-O., & Idsardi, W J. (under revision). Predicting speech: Neural correlates of voicing mismatch using MEG.
40. Neisser, U. (1967). Cognitive psychology. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
41. Norris, D., McQueen, J. M., & Cutler, A. (2000). Merging information in speech recognition: Feedback is never necessary. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23, 299-370.
42. Pardo, J. S., & Remez, R. E. (2006). The perception of speech. In M. Traxler & M. A. Gernsbacher (Eds.), The handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 201-248). New York: Academic Press.
43. Phillips, C, Pellathy, T, Marantz, A., Yellin, E., Wexler, K., Poeppel, D., et al. (2000). Auditory cortex accesses phonological categories: An MEG mismatch study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 12(6), 1038-1055.
44. Phillips, C, & Wagers, M. (2007). Relating structure and time in linguistics and psycholinguistics. In G Gaskell (Ed.), Oxford handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 739-756). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
45. Poeppel, D., & Idsardi, W J. (in press). Recognizing words from speech: The perception-action-memory loop.
46. Poeppel, D., Idsardi, W. J., & van Wassenhove, V. (2008). Speech perception at the interface of neurobiology and linguistics: Prospects and problems. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 363, 1071-1086.
47. Schultz, W, & Dickinson, A. (2000). Neuronal coding of prediction errors. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 23, 473-500.
48. Sommer, M. A., & Wurtz, R. H. (2008). Brain circuits for the internal monitoring of movements. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 31, 317-338.
49. Stein, B., & Meredith, A. (1993). The merging of the senses. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
50. Stekelenburg, J. J., & Vroomen, J. (2007). Neural correlates of multisensory integration of ecologically valid audiovisual events. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 19(12), 1964-1973.
51. Stevens, K. N. (1960). Toward a model for speech recognition. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 32(1), 47-55.
52. Stevens, K. N. (2002). Toward a model for lexical access based on acoustic landmarks and distinctive features. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 111(4), 1872-1891.
53. Stevens, K. N, & Halle, M. (1967). Remarks on analysis by synthesis and distinctive features. In W Wathen-Dunn (Ed.), Models for the perception of speech and visual form (pp. 88-102). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
54. Townsend, D. J., & Bever, T. G. (2001). Sentence comprehension: The integration of habits and rules. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
55. van Wassenhove, V, Grant, K. W., & Poeppel, D. (2005). Visual speech speeds up the neural processing of auditory speech. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 102(4), 1181-1186.
56. Wolpert, D. M., & Ghahramani, Z. (2004). Computational motor control. In M. S. Gazzaniga (Ed.), The cognitive neurosciences 3 (pp. 485-494). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
57. Yuille, A., & Kersten, D. (2006). Vision as Bayesian inference: Analysis by synthesis? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10(7), 301-308.