Speech perception when the motor system is compromised

Wilson, Stephen M.

doi:10.1016/j.tics.2009.06.001

Cited by 39 publications

(51 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…One argument for its limited importance is, e.g., that left frontal lesions that reduce speech production ability while speech perception ability remains relatively unimpaired (Hickok et al, 2009a) and that most studies with manipulations such as Wada and rTMS only show limited reductions in error rates. Wilson (2009) responded that the specific role of for motor system in perception can only be observed in this graded manner because the brain exhibits a redundancy in speech systems and the perceptual system utilize contextual information to great extent in speech comprehension. See Hickok et al, 2009a andWilson, 2009 for an extended discussion.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effective connectivity analysis demonstrates involvement of premotor cortex during speech perception

2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effective connectivity analysis demonstrates involvement of premotor cortex during speech perception

2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Independent mu rhythm components may also be better localized using equivalent dipole and current source density (e.g., sLORETA; Pascual-Marqui, 2002) methods. Further research carries the potential to examine more closely the task-dependent nature of sensorimotor activity, its relation to behavioral task performance, its specificity to speech, and the possibility that its role changes over the course of development as speech perception becomes an 'embodied' process (Aziz-Zadeh and Ivry, 2009;Galantucci et al, 2006;Skipper et al, 2005;Wilson, 2009). Le Bel et al (2009) also suggested that mu suppression might be a valuable tool for addressing audio-motor function when communicative integrity is compromised.…”

Section: Limitations and Future Directionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mu suppression as an index of sensorimotor contributions to speech processing: Evidence from continuous EEG signals

Cuellar

Bowers

Harkrider

et al. 2012

International Journal of Psychophysiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…That is, we promoted a model as in Figure 1a and against that represented in Figure 1b. Wilson [2] does not dispute this central position. Instead he argues that speech production regions could have a top-down influence on perception.…”

mentioning

confidence: 97%

Response to Wilson: What does motor cortex contribute to speech perception?

Hickok¹,

Holt²,

Lotto³

2009

Trends in Cognitive Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although the main goal of our paper [1] was to argue against mirror neurons as a possible instantiation of the Motor Theory of speech, we also presented evidence in support for an alternative auditory theory of speech perception. That is, we promoted a model as in Figure 1a and against that represented in Figure 1b. Wilson [2] does not dispute this central position. Instead he argues that speech production regions could have a top-down influence on perception. We agree wholeheartedly and would add that speech production systems are not the only source of topdown information. As Wilson hints, lexical-semantic information can also influence perception, and visual speech information is known to have dramatic effects [3] -arguably to a much greater extent than motor information. Although some authors attribute the influence of visual speech entirely to motor activity [4], there is evidence that 'direct' cross-sensory integration (visual-to-auditory) is the more robust source of influence [5].It seems that the only point of dispute raised by Wilson is one of terminology. We suggested that the motor system is not 'necessary' for speech perception; Wilson suggests that it is. By our use of the term we mean that it is possible, at least under some circumstances, for accurate speech perception to occur without the influence of the motor system. Evidence for this claim comes from the fact that even large left frontal lesions that reduce speech production to nil or stereotyped output do not produce considerable impairments in speech recognition [6]; that deactivating the entire left hemisphere in Wada procedures produces mutism yet results in only a 7.5% error rate in discriminating minimal phonemic pairs (hearing 'bear' and pointing to a matching picture among phonemic distractors [7]); that the failure to develop speech production does not preclude normal receptive speech development [8,9], and that infants as young as 1-month-old exhibit sophisticated speech perception ability including categorical perception well before they acquire the ability to speak [10].It is a fair criticism that many studies demonstrating preserved auditory comprehension in Broca's aphasics do not implement tight controls on contextual information. However, (i) this indicates the auditory system in concert with non-motor contextual cues is sufficient to support accurate speech perception at a high level, further reinforcing our claim that the motor system is not 'necessary' even in everyday noisy conditions and (ii), in studies that remove non-motor contextual cues, such as the Wada study described earlier, the magnitude of the decrement to speech sound perception is small (7.5% -and in this study it is possible that the decrement was largely caused by deactivation of left hemisphere 'auditory' systems).Wilson seems to align the term 'necessary' with the idea that the motor system plays some role in perception under some circumstances and he summarizes several findings to this effect. Three involve studies of Broca's aphasics, but as Wilson admi...

show abstract

Speech perception when the motor system is compromised

Cited by 39 publications

References 12 publications

Effective connectivity analysis demonstrates involvement of premotor cortex during speech perception

Effective connectivity analysis demonstrates involvement of premotor cortex during speech perception

Mu suppression as an index of sensorimotor contributions to speech processing: Evidence from continuous EEG signals

Response to Wilson: What does motor cortex contribute to speech perception?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About