Silent Reading of Direct versus Indirect Speech Activates Voice-selective Areas in the Auditory Cortex

Abstract

Abstract■ In human communication, direct speech (e.g., Mary said: "Iʼm hungry") is perceived to be more vivid than indirect speech (e.g., Mary said [that] she was hungry). However, for silent reading, the representational consequences of this distinction are still unclear. Although many of us share the intuition of an "inner voice," particularly during silent reading of direct speech statements in text, there has been little direct empirical confirmation of this experience so far. Combining fMRI with eye tracking in human volunteers, we show that silent reading of direct versus indirect speech engenders differential brain activation in voice-selective areas of the auditory cortex. This suggests that readers are indeed more likely to engage in perceptual simulations (or spontaneous imagery) of the reported speakerʼs voice when reading direct speech as opposed to meaning-equivalent indirect speech statements as part of a more vivid representation of the former. Our results may be interpreted in line with embodied cognition and form a starting point for more sophisticated interdisciplinary research on the nature of auditory mental simulation during reading. ■

The Influence of Direct and Indirect Speech on Source Memory

“…Despite that direct speech is perceived as more vivid (Stites et al, 2013;Yao et al, 2011Yao et al, , 2012Yao & Scheepers, 2011) and is used to make narratives more engaging (Labov, 1972;Li, 1986;Mayes, 1990;Wierzbicka, 1974), we found no clear evidence that people felt more transported when direct as compared to indirect speech was used. This could be due to the fact that the Narrative Transportation Scale (Green & Brock, 2000) not only taps into visual imagery but also includes items regarding cognitive and emotional-affective aspects.…”

“…Interestingly, reading direct speech resulted in more brain activation in voice-selective areas of the auditory cortex than reading indirect speech (Yao et al, 2011).…”

“…Psychological research has yielded support for this view. Direct speech is perceived as more vivid and perceptually engaging than indirect speech (Yao, Belin, & Scheepers, 2011Yao & Scheepers, 2011). For example, a context manipulation such that either a fast or a slow speaking protagonist was implied influenced reading times for direct but not indirect speech (Yao & Scheepers, 2011).…”

“…Direct speech is perceived as more vivid and perceptually engaging than indirect speech (Yao, Belin, & Scheepers, 2011Yao & Scheepers, 2011). For example, a context manipulation such that either a fast or a slow speaking protagonist was implied influenced reading times for direct but not indirect speech (Yao & Scheepers, 2011). Reading times for direct but not indirect speech were also affected by whether a certain utterance was produced quickly or slowly (Stites, Luke, & Christianson, 2013).…”

The neural bases of the pseudohomophone effect: Phonological constraints on lexico-semantic access in reading

“…In principle, phonological recoding could be abandoned after stable representations of visual word forms have developed and a skilled reader could determine the meaning of words directly from knowledge of its spelling. However, there is behavioral, electrophysiological, and neuroimaging evidence that the first language code with which we are confronted remains active in silent reading (e.g., Van Orden, 1987;Ziegler et al, 2000Ziegler et al, , 2001aJa¨ncke and Shah, 2004;Pammer et al, 2004;Alexander and Nygaard, 2008;Braun et al, 2009;Briesemeister et al, 2009;Wheat et al, 2010;Yao et al, 2011;Perrone-Bertolotti et al, 2012).…”