Do speakers have access to a mental syllabary? ERP comparison of high frequency and novel syllable production

Bürki, Audrey; Cheneval, Pauline Pellet; Laganaro, Marina

doi:10.1016/j.bandl.2015.08.006

Cited by 33 publications

(40 citation statements)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Differences in underlying generators are taken to indicate that different brain networks are activated, which in turn suggests the implication of different sets of cognitive processes. Microstate analyses have been applied to language production studies (Bürki, Pellet‐Cheneval, & Laganaro, ; Fargier & Laganaro, ; Laganaro, ) as well as in various other cognitive domains (e.g., Britz, Díaz Hernàndez, Ro, & Michel, ; Murray, Camen, Gonzalez‐Andino, Bovet, & Clarke, 2006).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Electrophysiological characterization of facilitation and interference in the picture‐word interference paradigm

Bürki

2017

Psychophysiology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The picture-word interference paradigm is often used to investigate the processes underlying word production. In this paradigm, participants name pictures while ignoring distractor words. The aim of this study is to investigate the processes underlying this task and how/when they differ from those involved in simple picture naming. It examines the electrophysiological signature of general interference (longer response times with than without distractors) and facilitation (shorter response times for distractor-word stimuli overlapping in phonemes/orthography) effects. Mass univariate analyses are used to determine the temporal boundaries and spatial distribution of these effects without a priori restrictions in the time/space dimensions. Topographic pattern analyses complement this information by indicating whether (and when) the neural networks differ across conditions. Results suggest that the general interference effect has two loci, the grammatical encoding and the phonological encoding of the target word, with different neural networks involved in the two tasks during part of the grammatical encoding process. Furthermore, the electrophysiological signature of interference and facilitation effects in the time window of phonological encoding is highly similar, suggesting that the two effects could result from the same underlying mechanism. These findings are discussed in the light of existing accounts of interference and facilitation effects.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Electrophysiological characterization of facilitation and interference in the picture‐word interference paradigm

Bürki

2017

Psychophysiology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…To correct for multiple comparisons, a spatio-temporal clustering criterion was used: only differences observed over at least 5 adjacent electrodes and extending over at least 20 ms were retained with a conservative alpha criterion of 0.01 [40–42]. …”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Neurophysiological Modulations of Non-Verbal and Verbal Dual-Tasks Interference during Word Planning

Fargier

Laganaro

2016

PLoS ONE

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Running a concurrent task while speaking clearly interferes with speech planning, but whether verbal vs. non-verbal tasks interfere with the same processes is virtually unknown. We investigated the neural dynamics of dual-task interference on word production using event-related potentials (ERPs) with either tones or syllables as concurrent stimuli. Participants produced words from pictures in three conditions: without distractors, while passively listening to distractors and during a distractor detection task. Production latencies increased for tasks with higher attentional demand and were longer for syllables relative to tones. ERP analyses revealed common modulations by dual-task for verbal and non-verbal stimuli around 240 ms, likely corresponding to lexical selection. Modulations starting around 350 ms prior to vocal onset were only observed when verbal stimuli were involved. These later modulations, likely reflecting interference with phonological-phonetic encoding, were observed only when overlap between tasks was maximal and the same underlying neural circuits were engaged (cross-talk).

show abstract

“…As another example, both behavioural and neural evidence suggests that the speech motor programming routines for producing low- versus high-frequency syllables are qualitatively different (Aichert & Ziegler, 2004; Bürki, Cheneval, & Laganaro, 2015; Cholin, Dell, & Levelt, 2011). Yet both types of routines are considered part of the speech system.…”

Section: Conceptual and Empirical Challengesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Adams, Weismer, & Kent, 1993; Van Lancker Sidtis et al, 2012). Finally, recent neuroimaging research indicates that planning of syllable structure and planning of syllable sequences rely in part on distinct neural regions (Bohland & Guenther, 2006; see also Ziegler et al, 1997), that vowels and consonants, and different types of consonants, have different neural representations (Bouchard et al, 2013), and that high-frequency and novel syllables recruit different neural circuitry (Bürki et al, 2015). Thus, each sound, in each context, has a different goal, or represents a different task.…”

Section: Conceptual and Empirical Challengesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Speech and nonspeech: What are we talking about?

Maas

2016

International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Understanding of the behavioural, cognitive, and neural underpinnings of speech production is of interest theoretically, and is important for understanding disorders of speech production and how to assess and treat such disorders in the clinic. This paper addresses two claims about the neuromotor control of speech production: (1) speech is subserved by a distinct, specialised motor control system, (2) speech is holistic and cannot be decomposed into smaller primitives. Both claims have gained traction in recent literature, and are central to a task-dependent model of speech motor control (Ziegler, 2003a). The purpose of this paper is to stimulate thinking about speech production, its disorders, and the clinical implications of these claims. The paper poses several conceptual and empirical challenges for these claims – including the critical importance of defining speech. The emerging conclusion is that a task-dependent model is called into question as its two central claims are founded on ill-defined and inconsistently applied concepts. The paper concludes with discussion of methodological and clinical implications, including the potential utility of diadochokinetic (DDK) tasks in assessment of motor speech disorders and the contraindication of nonspeech oral motor exercises to improve speech function.

show abstract

Do speakers have access to a mental syllabary? ERP comparison of high frequency and novel syllable production

Cited by 33 publications

References 40 publications

Electrophysiological characterization of facilitation and interference in the picture‐word interference paradigm

Electrophysiological characterization of facilitation and interference in the picture‐word interference paradigm

Neurophysiological Modulations of Non-Verbal and Verbal Dual-Tasks Interference during Word Planning

Speech and nonspeech: What are we talking about?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About