Abnormal speech sound representation in persistent developmental stuttering

Corbera, Sílvia; Corral, María; Escera, Carles; Idiazábal, María Angeles

doi:10.1212/01.wnl.0000180969.03719.81

Cited by 50 publications

(45 citation statements)

References 44 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Participants were presented with a protocol to evaluate central sound representation (49), that comprised three different conditions tapping general acoustic perception (duration, frequency, and pattern conditions) and specific language perception (phonetic condition) (see Table 1). …”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Brain potentials to native phoneme discrimination reveal the origin of individual differences in learning the sounds of a second language

Díaz

Baus²,

Escera³

et al. 2008

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

125

157

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Human beings differ in their ability to master the sounds of their second language (L2). Phonetic training studies have proposed that differences in phonetic learning stem from differences in psychoacoustic abilities rather than speech-specific capabilities. We aimed at finding the origin of individual differences in L2 phonetic acquisition in natural learning contexts. We consider two alternative explanations: a general psychoacoustic origin vs. a speech-specific one. For this purpose, event-related potentials (ERPs) were recorded from two groups of early, proficient Spanish-Catalan bilinguals who differed in their mastery of the Catalan (L2) phonetic contrast /e-/. Brain activity in response to acoustic change detection was recorded in three different conditions involving tones of different length (duration condition), frequency (frequency condition), and presentation order (pattern condition). In addition, neural correlates of speech change detection were also assessed for both native (/o/-/e/) and nonnative (/o/-/ö /) phonetic contrasts (speech condition). Participants' discrimination accuracy, reflected electrically as a mismatch negativity (MMN), was similar between the two groups of participants in the three acoustic conditions. Conversely, the MMN was reduced in poor perceivers (PP) when they were presented with speech sounds. Therefore, our results support a speech-specific origin of individual variability in L2 phonetic mastery. mismatch negativity ͉ event-related potentials ͉ bilingualism L earning a nonnative language sound system is notoriously difficult and often results in the foreign accent that characterizes nonnative speakers. This difficulty in learning a new speech sound system also has consequences for comprehension of the nonnative language. For example, most Japanese native speakers may consider that the English words /rock/ and /lock/ are the same word (1), because the Japanese speech-sound system does not distinguish between the phonemes /r/ and /l/. However, individuals differ significantly in the degree to which they master a nonnative phonetic code, and factors such as the age of acquisition, the amount of exposure, and motivational constraints have a crucial role in final phonetic attainment (2). Despite very early, extended exposure to a L2, many individuals continue to have considerable difficulties in the perception and production of some foreign sounds (3), whereas other nonnative speakers cannot be distinguished from native speakers (4). Discovering the origin of such individual differences is crucial for predicting success in L2 acquisition and for designing learning protocols that maximize the success of L2 learning. To advance in our knowledge of the origin of this individual is the goal of the present study. Specifically, we assess whether such individual differences stem from differences in domain-general psychoacoustic processes or, rather, from differences in specific speech perception abilities.One prolific line of research has explored the neural differences between ind...

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Brain potentials to native phoneme discrimination reveal the origin of individual differences in learning the sounds of a second language

Díaz

Baus²,

Escera³

et al. 2008

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

125

157

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Pinsky and McAdam (1980) obtained the opposite profile, also nonsignificant. Most evoked response potential (ERP) studies of other components in stuttering did not find, or did not look for, abnormal hemispheric asymmetry (Corbera, Corral, Escera, & Idiazabal, 2005;Cuadrado & Weber-Fox, 2003;Rosanowski et al, 1998;Vartanov, Glozman, Kisel'nikov & Karpova, 2005;Weber-Fox, Spencer, & Spruill, 2004). Morgan, Cranford, and Burk (1997) presented common (80% probability) versus rare (20% probability) auditory tones to people who stutter and to fluent speakers, requiring no response.…”

Section: Introduction Eeg Investigations Of Stutteringmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Many nonmotoric anomalies may contribute to dysfluent speech. For example, dysfluent speakers manifest abnormal attention (Bosshardt, 2006;Bosshardt, Ballmer, & de Nil, 2002;Heitmann, Asbjornsen, & Helland, 2004), abnormal short-term memory (Hakim & Ratner, 2004;Vartanov et al, 2005) and abnormal visual and auditory speech perception (Corbera et al, 2005;Cuadrado & WeberFox, 2003;Rosanowski et al, 1998;WeberFox et al, 2004). Thus, it is important to focus on all these aspects in the search for brain based direct contributions to stuttering.…”

Section: Introduction Eeg Investigations Of Stutteringmentioning

confidence: 99%

Event-Related Potentials Distinguish Fluent and Stuttered Speech

Achim¹,

Braun²,

Collin³

2008

Journal of Neurotherapy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…1 Decades of neuroimaging research have revealed various functional and structural anomalies in people with PDS. [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10] However, these studies cannot differentiate between neural anomalies that are responsible for PDS and those that are a result of compensating for stuttering. 8,9 This is because long-term compensation can result in both functional and structural changes in the brain of PDS patients.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Neural anomaly and reorganization in speakers who stutter

Chen

Peng

et al. 2012

Neurology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives:The aim of the current study was to differentiate between neural activity that represents neural anomalies that are responsible for persistent developmental stuttering (PDS) from the activity that is a result of compensating for stuttering. This was done by investigating alterations to the intrinsic functional architecture of speech-language processes of patients with PDS before and after a short-term intervention. Methods:The resting-state functional connectivity (RSFC) and cortical thickness were examined before and after the intervention. The structural data were used to validate the functional results. Fifteen stuttering patients who received intervention (PDSϩ), 13 stuttering patients who did not receive intervention (PDSϪ), and 13 fluent controls participated.Results: Before the intervention, both groups of PDS patients showed significant RSFC and cortical thickness reductions in the left pars-opercularis (PO) and RSFC increases in the cerebellum, as compared to fluent controls. The intervention was effective in reducing stuttering in PDSϩ patients and lowering their RSFC in the cerebellum to the level of fluent controls. The intervention effect was specific to the PDSϩ group (it was not evident in the PDSϪ group). The intervention did not change RSFC and cortical thickness in the left PO, which remained at its preintervention level. Conclusions:The results suggest that the left PO is a locus where the intrinsic functional architecture of speech-language processes is altered in PDS patients, suggesting an etiologic role of this region in PDS. The cerebellum showed intervention-induced neural reorganization, suggesting a compensatory response when stuttering occurs. Neurology ® 2012;79:625-632 GLOSSARY AFNI ϭ Analysis of Functional NeuroImages; BA ϭ Brodmann area; EPI ϭ echoplanar image; IC ϭ independent component; ICA ϭ independent component analysis; IFC ϭ inferior frontal cortex; MFG ϭ middle frontal gyrus; OASES ϭ Overall Assessment of the Speaker's Experience of Stuttering; PDS ϭ persistent developmental stuttering; PDS؊ ϭ stuttering patients who did not receive intervention; PDS؉ ϭ stuttering patients who received intervention; PO ϭ pars-opercularis; ROI ϭ region of interest; RSFC ϭ resting-state functional connectivity; SMA ϭ supplementary motor area; SSI-3 ϭ Stuttering Severity Instrument version III; TE ϭ echo time; TR ϭ repetition time.

show abstract

Abnormal speech sound representation in persistent developmental stuttering

Cited by 50 publications

References 44 publications

Brain potentials to native phoneme discrimination reveal the origin of individual differences in learning the sounds of a second language

Brain potentials to native phoneme discrimination reveal the origin of individual differences in learning the sounds of a second language

Event-Related Potentials Distinguish Fluent and Stuttered Speech

Neural anomaly and reorganization in speakers who stutter

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About