Phonotactic constraint violations in German grammar are detected automatically in auditory speech processing: A human event-related potentials study

Psychophysiology

Volumn 48, Issue 9, 2011, Pages 1208-1216

  Steinberg, Johanna ^a,c   Truckenbrodt, Hubert ^b   Jacobsen, Thomas ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LEIPZIG   (Germany)

^b Centre for General Linguistics ZAS   (Germany)

^c HELMUT SCHMIDT UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

Author keywords

Event related potential (ERP); Mismatch negativity (MMN); Phonotactic constraints; Speech perception

Indexed keywords

EID: 79960846179     PISSN: 00485772     EISSN: 14698986     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-8986.2011.01200.x     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. American Encephalographic Society (1994). Guideline thirteen: Guidelines for standard electrode position nomenclature. Journal of Clinical Neurophysiology, 11, 111-113.
2. Boersma, P., & Weenink, D. (2010). Praat: Doing phonetics by computer (Version 5.1.30) [Computer program]. Retrieved March 24, 2010, from.
3. Bonte, M. L., Mitterer, H., Zellagui, N., Poelmans, H., & Blomert, L. (2005). Auditory cortical tuning to statistical regularities in phonology. Clinical Neurophysiology, 116, 2765-2774.
4. Bonte, M. L., Poelmans, H., & Blomert, L. (2007). Deviant neurophysiological responses to phonological regularities in speech in dyslexic children. Neuropsychologia, 45, 1427-1437.
5. Chatrian, G. E., Lettich, E., & Nelson, P. L. (1985). Ten percent electrode system for topographic studies of spontaneous and evoked EEG activities. American Journal of EEG Technology, 25, 83-92.
6. Chatrian, G. E., Lettich, E., & Nelson, P. L. (1988). Modified nomenclature for the "10%" electrode system. Journal of Clinical Neurophysiology, 5, 183-186.
7. Chomsky, N. (1988). Language and problems of knowledge. The Managua lectures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
8. Chomsky, N., & Halle, M. (1991). The sound pattern of English (2nd ed). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
9. Davidson, L. (2006). Phonology, phonetics, or frequency: Influences on the productions of non-native sequences. Journal of Phonetics, 34, 104-137.
10. Dehaene-Lambertz, G. (1997). Electrophysiological correlates of categorical phoneme perception in adults. NeuroReport, 8, 919-924.
11. de Lacy, P. (Ed.). (2007). The Cambridge handbook of phonology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
12. Dehaene-Lambertz, G., Dupoux, E., & Gout, A. (2000). Electrophysiological correlates of phonological processing: A cross-linguistic study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 12, 635-647.
13. Eulitz, C., & Lahiri, A. (2004). Neurobiological evidence for abstract phonological representations in the mental lexicon during speech recognition. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 16, 577-583.
14. Féry, C. (2001). Phonologie des Deutschen: eine optimalitätstheoretische Einführung. Teil 2 (Linguistics in Potsdam 11). Potsdam, Germany: Universitätsverlag Potsdam.
15. Hall, T. A. (1989). Lexical phonology and the distribution of German and Phonology, 6, 1-17.
16. Hall, T. A. (1992). Syllable structure and syllable-related processes in German. Tübingen, Germany: Niemeyer.
17. Jacobsen, T., Horváth, J., Schröger, E., Lattner, S., Widmann, A., & Winkler, I. (2004). Pre-attentive auditory processing of lexicality. Brain and Language, 88, 54-67.
18. Jacobsen, T., & Schröger, E. (2004). Input to the verbal working memory: Preattentive construction of the central speech representation. Experimental Psychology, 51, 231-239.
19. Kenstowicz, M. (1994). Phonology in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
20. Lahiri, A., & Reetz, H. (2002). Underspecified recognition. In C. Gussenhoven & N. Warner (Eds.), Laboratory phonology 7. Berlin, Germany: Mouton.
21. MacFarland, T., & Pierrehumbert, J. (1991). On ich-Laut, ach-Laut and structure preservation. Phonology, 8, 171-180.
22. Merchant, J. (1996). Alignment and fricative assimilation in German. Linguistic Inquiry, 27, 709-719.
23. Mitterer, H., & Blomert, L. (2003). Coping with phonological assimilation in speech perception: Evidence for early compensation. Perception and Psychophysics, 65, 956-969.
24. Muller-Gass, A., Roye, A., Kirmse, U., Saupe, K., Jacobsen, T., & Schröger, E. (2007). Automatic detection of lexical change: An auditory event-related potential study. Neuroreport, 18, 1747-1751.
25. Näätänen, R. (1992). Attention and brain function. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
26. Näätänen, R. (2001). The perception of speech sounds by the human brain as reflected by the mismatch negativity (MMN) and its magnetic equivalent (MMNm). Psychophysiology, 38, 1-21.
27. Näätänen, R., Gaillard, A. W. K., & Mäntysalo, S. (1978). Early selective-attention effect on evoked-potential reinterpreted. Acta Psychologica, 42, 313-329.
28. Näätänen, R., Lehtokoski, A., Lennes, M., Cheour-Luhtanen, M., Huotilainen, M., Iivonen, A., Alho, K. (1997). Language-specific phoneme representations revealed by electric and magnetic brain responses. Nature, 385, 432-434.
29. Näätänen, R., Paavilainen, P., Rinne, T., & Alho, K. (2007). The mismatch negativity (MMN) in basic research of central auditory processing: A review. Clinical Neurophysiology, 118, 2544-2590.
30. Näätänen, R., & Winkler, I. (1999). The concept of auditory stimulus representation in cognitive neuroscience. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 826-859.
31. Noske, M. (1997). Feature spreading as dealignment: The distribution of and in German. Phonology, 14, 221-234.
32. Oldfield, R. C. (1971). The assessment and analysis of handedness: The Edinburgh Inventory. Neuropsychologia, 9, 97-113.
33. Pitt, M. A. (1998). Phonological processes and the perception of phonotactically illegal consonant clusters. Perception and Psychophysics, 60, 941-951.
34. Pritchard, W. S., Chappell, S. A., & Brandt, M. E. (1991). Psychophysiology of N200/N400: A review and classification scheme. In J. R. Jennings, P. K. Ackless, & M. G. H. Coles (Eds.), Advances in psychophysiology: A research annual (pp. 43-106). London, UK: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
35. Pulvermüller, F., & Assadollahi, R. (2007). Grammar or serial order?: Discrete combinatorial brain mechanisms reflected by the syntactic mismatch negativity. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 19, 971-980.
36. Pulvermüller, F., Kujala, T., Shtyrov, Y., Simola, J., Tiitinen, H., Alku, P., Näätänen, R. (2001). Memory traces for words as revealed by the mismatch negativity. NeuroImage, 14, 607-616.
37. Pulvermüller, F., & Shtyrov, Y. (2003). Automatic processing of grammar in the human brain as revealed by the mismatch negativity. NeuroImage, 20, 159-172.
38. Pulvermüller, F., & Shtyrov, Y. (2006). Language outside the focus of attention: The mismatch negativity as a tool for studying higher cognitive processes. Progress in Neurobiology, 79, 49-71.
39. Roye, A., Jacobsen, T., & Schröger, E. (2007). Personal significance is encoded automatically by the human brain: An event-related potential study with ringtones. European Journal of Neuroscience, 26, 784-790.
40. Schröger, E. (1998). Measurement and interpretation of the mismatch negativity. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 30, 131-145.
41. Schröger, E. (2007). Mismatch negativity: A microphone into auditory memory. Journal of Psychophysiology, 21, 138-146.
42. Schröger, E., Tervaniemi, M., & Huotilainen, M. (2004). Bottom-up and top-down flow of information within auditory memory: Electrophysiological evidence. In C. Kaernbach, E. Schröger, & H. Müller (Eds.), Psychophysics beyond sensation: Laws and invariants of human cognition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
43. Sharma, A., & Dorman, M. F. (2000). Neurophysiologic correlates of cross-language phonetic perception. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 107, 2697-2703.
44. Shtyrov, Y., & Pulvermüller, F. (2007). Language in the mismatch negativity design. Motivations, benefits, and prospects. Journal of Psychophysiology, 21, 176-187.
45. Shtyrov, Y., Pulvermüller, F., Näätänen, R., & Ilmoniemi, R. J. (2003). Grammar processing outside the focus of attention: An MEG study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 15, 1195-1206.
46. Steinberg, J., Truckenbrodt, H., & Jacobsen, T. (2010a). Activation and application of an obligatory phonotactic constraint in German during automatic speech processing is revealed by human event-related potentials. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 77, 13-20.
47. Steinberg, J., Truckenbrodt, H., & Jacobsen, T. (2010b). Preattentive phonotactic processing as indexed by the mismatch negativity. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 22, 2174-2185.
48. Tavabi, K., Elling, L., Dobel, C., Pantev, C., & Zwitzerlood, P. (2009). Effects of place of articulation changes on auditory neural activity: A magnetoencephalography study. PLoS ONE, 4, e4452.
49. Wagner, A., Ernestus, M., & Cutler, A. (2006). Formant transitions in fricative identification: The role of native fricative inventory. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 120, 2267-2277.
50. Winkler, I. (2007). Interpreting the mismatch negativity. Journal of Psychophysiology, 21, 147-163.
51. Winkler, I., Lehtokoski, A., Alku, P., Vainio, M., Czigler, I., Csepe, V., Näätänen, R. (1999). Pre-attentive detection of vowel contrasts utilizes both phonetic and auditory memory representations. Cognitive Brain Research, 7, 357-369.
52. World Medical Association (2008). World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki. Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects. Retrieved May 6, 2010, from.