Brain Activity During Speaking: From Syntax to Phonology in 40 Milliseconds

Abstract

In normal conversation, speakers translate thoughts into words at high speed. To enable this speed, the retrieval of distinct types of linguistic knowledge has to be orchestrated with millisecond precision. The nature of this orchestration is still largely unknown. This report presents dynamic measures of the real-time activation of two basic types of linguistic knowledge, syntax and phonology. Electrophysiological data demonstrate that during noun-phrase production speakers retrieve the syntactic gender of a noun before its abstract phonological properties. This two-step process operates at high speed: the data show that phonological information is already available 40 milliseconds after syntactic properties have been retrieved.

Phonological processing during language production: fMRI evidence for a shared production-comprehension network

“…trophysiological studies represent one part of the crucial Accordingly, one can further conclude that semantic evidence in favour of the Levelt model [40]. van Turennprocessing per se does not automatically lead to phonologiout et al [65,66] were the first to demonstrate the seriality cal processing, but only when it is required by the task. of access to semantic, syntactic, and phonological inIt must be stated that the processes tapped by metalingformation during language production by means of lateraluistic decision tasks as introduced by van Turennout and ised readiness potentials (LRPs).…”

“…of access to semantic, syntactic, and phonological inIt must be stated that the processes tapped by metalingformation during language production by means of lateraluistic decision tasks as introduced by van Turennout and ised readiness potentials (LRPs). In their Experiment 1 colleagues [65,66] differ from 'natural' production pro-[65], subjects had to perform a task consisting of a cesses in that they require explicit judgements about metalinguistic decision which was coupled with a go / noinformation becoming available in the course of lexical go task. They were presented with pictures depicting either access.…”

“…The former task was experimental set-up). Due to the relatively small size of the previously used by van Turennout et al [65,66], whereas item set (resulting from the careful selection of the items the latter task was applied by Abdel-Rahman and Sommer before the experiment), all object stimuli were presented in [1], Rodriguez-Fornells et al [53], and Schmitt et al [55].…”

“…Using a phoneme discrimination task process is different. After the retrieval of the phonological (/k/ or /s/; /v/ or /h/ ), van Turennout et al [65,66] code of the picture name, there is not one unique set of observed a difference between go-and no-go trials in the features establishing the yes / no-criterion. Rather, the time window between 400 and 410 ms, indicating the properties of the initial phoneme must match those of any availability of the phonological information.…”

Comparing Electrophysiological Correlates of Word Production in Immediate and Delayed Naming Through the Analysis of Word Age of Acquisition Effects

“…For instance, metalinguistic tasks associated to go/no go paradigms have been largely used since the first ERP studies on speech production with healthy subjects (Jescheniak, Schriefers, Garrett, & Friederici, 2002;Rodriguez-Fornells, Schmitt, Kutas, & Münte, 2002;Schmitt, Münte, & Kutas, 2000;Van Turennout, Hagoort, & Brown, 1998, 1999Zhang & Damian, 2009) and with brain damaged (aphasic) speakers Hensel, Rockstroch, Berg, & Schonle, 2004). Besides the drawback of using a metalinguistic task to study speech production, the interpretation of such results in terms of time-course of the addressed encoding processes is problematic.…”