Event-related potentials associated with the discrimination of acoustic and semantic aspects of speech

Novick, Barbara; Lovrich, Deborah; Vaughan, Herbert G.

doi:10.1016/0028-3932(85)90047-8

Cited by 26 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These include the level of linguistic complexity and acoustic information. Most studies investigating AERPs have emphasized the linguistic complexity factor [Novick et al, 1985;Meador et al, 1987;Lovrich et al, 1988Lovrich et al, , 1996. In the present study, both factors were considered.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…phonetic, semantic). Of these factors the latter two have been addressed in various studies [Novick et al, 1985;Meador et al, 1987;Lovrich et al, 1988Lovrich et al, , 1996Kayser et al, 1998]. The first factor (i.e.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…the acoustics of the stimuli), however, has been mentioned only briefly, even though its effect on latency attributes of AERPs can bias the results leading to misinterpretation. Duration of the stimuli, for example, can affect the absolute peak latencies of the AERPs: shorter stimuli are typically associated with earlier P 3 [Lovrich et al, 1988;Meador et al, 1987;Novick et al, 1985], whereas longer stimuli are often associated with longer P 3 [Lovrich et al, 1996]. A more difficult issue to address is related to the fact that the information required for word recognition can vary among stimuli.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This may become a confounding factor when comparing AERP latencies in tasks of different linguistic complexities. For example, in an oddball phonetic task administered by Novick et al [1985], listeners were asked to identify the target word 'gid' from nontarget words 'bot, deg, gawp, dak'. In their following semantic task, listeners were asked to identify target animal names (dog, goat, bug) from nontarget words (back, bad, dead, deck, got, dot, bid, big, bit, dad, get, god, gut).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Auditory Event-Related Potentials during Phonetic and Semantic Processing in Children

et al. 2002

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study was designed to follow the time course of different levels of linguistic processing using auditory event-related potentials (AERPs). A hierarchical set of acoustically controlled stimuli was used to elicit AERPs in 20 normal children who performed discrimination tasks involving pure tones, phonetic ‘easy’ and ‘difficult’ stimuli and semantic stimuli. Results show that (1) AERP latencies were similar for phonetic ‘easy’ and ‘difficult’ stimuli, (2) prolonged P₂, N₂ and P₃ latencies characterized semantic processing compared to phonetic processing, (3) a late negativity was elicited during semantic processing only, (4) P₃ amplitudes were larger over the left compared to right scalp during linguistic processing (phonetic and semantic) but were similar during nonlinguistic processing (pure tones) and (5) reaction time was found to be longest for semantic processing whereas performance accuracy was found to be an insensitive measure. These results provide insight into brain processes underlying the perception of speech. Furthermore, they support a dual model of speech perception that includes parallel and serial processing.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Auditory Event-Related Potentials during Phonetic and Semantic Processing in Children

et al. 2002

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…During passive word-reading tasks, event-related potentials (ERP) show a negative peak at about 200 ms, which peaks in the left inferior occipitotemporal region [19,20,21,22]. Phonological integration with orthography has been implicated at several time points, such as 150, 200 and 300 ms [23,24,25,26].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Differential Phonological and Semantic Modulation of Neurophysiological Responses to Visual Word Recognition

Drakesmith¹,

El‐Deredy

Welbourne³

2015

Neuropsychobiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Reading words for meaning relies on orthographic, phonological and semantic processing. The triangle model implicates a direct orthography-to-semantics pathway and a phonologically mediated orthography-to-semantics pathway, which interact with each other. The temporal evolution of processing in these routes is not well understood, although theoretical evidence predicts early phonological processing followed by interactive phonological and semantic processing. Method: This study used electroencephalography-event-related potential (ERP) analysis and magnetoencephalography (MEG) source localisation to identify temporal markers and the corresponding neural generators of these processes in early (∼200 ms) and late (∼400 ms) neurophysiological responses to visual words, pseudowords and consonant strings. Results: ERP showed an effect of phonology but not semantics in both time windows, although at ∼400 ms there was an effect of stimulus familiarity. Phonological processing at ~200 ms was localised to the left occipitotemporal cortex and the inferior frontal gyrus. At 400 ms, there was continued phonological processing in the inferior frontal gyrus and additional semantic processing in the anterior temporal cortex. There was also an area in the left temporoparietal junction which was implicated in both phonological and semantic processing. In ERP, the semantic response at ∼400 ms appeared to be masked by concurrent processes relating to familiarity, while MEG successfully differentiated these processes. Discussion: The results support the prediction of early phonological processing followed by an interaction of phonological and semantic processing during word recognition. Neuroanatomical loci of these processes are consistent with previous neuropsychological and functional magnetic resonance imaging studies. The results also have implications for the classical interpretation of N400-like responses as markers for semantic processing.

show abstract

Electrophysiology of the Human Auditory System

Kraus

McGee²

1992

Springer Handbook of Auditory Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Event-related potentials associated with the discrimination of acoustic and semantic aspects of speech

Cited by 26 publications

References 18 publications

Auditory Event-Related Potentials during Phonetic and Semantic Processing in Children

Auditory Event-Related Potentials during Phonetic and Semantic Processing in Children

Differential Phonological and Semantic Modulation of Neurophysiological Responses to Visual Word Recognition

Electrophysiology of the Human Auditory System

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About