Familiarity with Speech Affects Cortical Processing of Auditory Distance Cues and Increases Acuity

Wisniewski, Matthew G.; Mercado, Eduardo; Gramann, Klaus; Makeig, Scott

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0041025

Cited by 20 publications

(41 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A recent study of auditory distance estimation by humans hearing familiar and foreign speech sounds found that the advantage for forward speech still holds for an unfamiliar foreign language (Wisniewski et al, 2012). Thus, familiarity per se does not seem to be the key factor that makes speech more localizable.…”

Section: Do Mammals Imitate Sounds To Enhance Their Perception Of Actmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Familiarity with sound features can dramatically improve an individual's ability to range the source of that sound (Coleman, 1962;Little, Mershon, & Cox, 1992). Humans are also known to be better at ranging speech than artificial sounds (Gardner, 1969), and to be better at ranging forward speech than speech played backward (McGregor, Horn, & Todd, 1985;Wisniewski, Mercado, Gramann, & Makeig, 2012). Because backward speech contains all of the acoustic information present in forward speech, any environmental degradation of sound features associated with propagation will be the same for both forward and backward speech.…”

Section: Do Mammals Imitate Sounds To Enhance Their Perception Of Actmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Imitating Sounds: A Cognitive Approach to Understanding Vocal Imitation

Mercado¹,

Mantell²,

Pfordresher³

2014

CCBR

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Vocal imitation is often described as a specialized form of learning that facilitates social communication and that involves less cognitively sophisticated mechanisms than more "perceptually opaque" types of imitation. Here, we present an alternative perspective. Considering current evidence from adult mammals, we note that vocal imitation often does not lead to learning and can involve a wide range of cognitive processes. We further suggest that sound imitation capacities may have evolved in certain mammals, such as cetaceans and humans, to enhance both the perception of ongoing actions and the prediction of future events, rather than to facilitate mate attraction or the formation of social bonds. The ability of adults to voluntarily imitate sounds is better described as a cognitive skill than as a communicative learning mechanism. Sound imitation abilities are gradually acquired through practice and require the coordination of multiple perceptual-motor and cognitive mechanisms for representing and generating sounds. Understanding these mechanisms is critical to explaining why relatively few mammals are capable of flexibly imitating sounds, and why individuals vary in their ability to imitate sounds. Keywords: mimicry; copying; social learning; singing; emulation; imitatible; convergence; imitativenessIn his seminal text, Habitat and Instinct, Lloyd Morgan (1896, p. 166) describes two general kinds of imitation: instinctive imitation and intelligent or voluntary imitation. The examples he provides of intelligent imitation mostly involve reproducing sounds-a child copies words used by his companions, a mockingbird imitates the songs of 32 other bird species, a jay imitates the neighing of a horse, and so on. In fact, most of the examples of "imitation proper" that Morgan provides consist of birds reproducing the sounds of other species. Similarly, Romanes (1884) focuses almost exclusively on reports of birds imitating songs, music, and speech in his discussion of imitation. These classic portrayals of vocal reproductions as providing the best and clearest examples of imitation stand in stark contrast to current psychological discussions of imitation, which often classify examples such as those given by Romanes and Morgan as non-imitative performances that merely resemble actual imitation (Byrne, 2002;Heyes, 1996). When did phenomena that were once considered archetypal examples of voluntary imitation transform into a footnote of modern cognitive theories? Was some discovery made that fundamentally changed our scientific understanding of the processes underlying vocal imitation? Have psychologists or biologists succeeded in explaining what vocal imitation is and how it works to the point where little can be gained from further study? Or, have theoretical assumptions led scientists to underestimate the cognitive mechanisms required for an individual to be able to flexibly imitate sounds?In the present article, we attempt to identify what exactly vocal imitation entails, and to assess whether current explanatory fr...

show abstract

Section: Do Mammals Imitate Sounds To Enhance Their Perception Of Actmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Do Mammals Imitate Sounds To Enhance Their Perception Of Actmentioning

confidence: 99%

Imitating Sounds: A Cognitive Approach to Understanding Vocal Imitation

Mercado¹,

Mantell²,

Pfordresher³

2014

CCBR

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Blind individuals discriminate auditory source distance better than normally sighted individuals (Voss et al, 2004 ; Kolarik et al, 2013 ), possibly reflecting learning-induced cortical plasticity in areas normally devoted to vision (e.g., Gougoux et al, 2004 ; Voss et al, 2011 ). Also, the source distance of speech played forward is more accurately judged than the same speech played backwards (McGregor et al, 1985 ; Brungart and Scott, 2001 ; Banks et al, 2007 ; Wisniewski et al, 2012 ). Because the known acoustic cues to distance are well matched between stimuli played forward and time-reversed (McGregor et al, 1985 ; Brungart and Scott, 2001 ), better performance for forward speech suggests that central cognitive processes play a significant role in distance perception.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Brain dynamics that correlate with effects of learning on auditory distance perception

et al. 2014

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Accuracy in auditory distance perception can improve with practice and varies for sounds differing in familiarity. Here, listeners were trained to judge the distances of English, Bengali, and backwards speech sources pre-recorded at near (2-m) and far (30-m) distances. Listeners' accuracy was tested before and after training. Improvements from pre-test to post-test were greater for forward speech, demonstrating a learning advantage for forward speech sounds. Independent component (IC) processes identified in electroencephalographic (EEG) data collected during pre- and post-testing revealed three clusters of ICs across subjects with stimulus-locked spectral perturbations related to learning and accuracy. One cluster exhibited a transient stimulus-locked increase in 4–8 Hz power (theta event-related synchronization; ERS) that was smaller after training and largest for backwards speech. For a left temporal cluster, 8–12 Hz decreases in power (alpha event-related desynchronization; ERD) were greatest for English speech and less prominent after training. In contrast, a cluster of IC processes centered at or near anterior portions of the medial frontal cortex showed learning-related enhancement of sustained increases in 10–16 Hz power (upper-alpha/low-beta ERS). The degree of this enhancement was positively correlated with the degree of behavioral improvements. Results suggest that neural dynamics in non-auditory cortical areas support distance judgments. Further, frontal cortical networks associated with attentional and/or working memory processes appear to play a role in perceptual learning for source distance.

show abstract

“…In general, the distance estimates were the most accurate in the case of live talkers [15,30,40]. It is also noteworthy that in the case of reproduced speech phrases listeners can make relatively accurate estimates to a source playing natural speech but fail when the speech is played backwards [38,41].…”

Section: Auditory Distance Estimationmentioning

confidence: 89%

“…Recently, Wisniewski at al. [41] used open field recordings reproduced in a closed space and reported substantial individual differences among the listeners in judging auditory distance. The differences ranged from 51% to 77%.…”

Section: Individual Differencesmentioning

confidence: 99%