Low-frequency cortical responses to natural speech reflect probabilistic phonotactics

Humans comprehend speech despite the various challenges such as mispronunciation and noisy environments. Our auditory system is robust to these thanks to the integration of the sensory input with prior knowledge and expectations built on language-specific regularities. One such regularity regards the permissible phoneme sequences, which determine the likelihood that a word belongs to a given language (phonotactic probability; "blick" is more likely to be an English word than "bnick"). Previous research demonstrated that violations of these rules modulate brain-evoked responses. However, several fundamental questions remain unresolved, especially regarding the neural encoding and integration strategy of phonotactics in naturalistic conditions, when there are no (or few) violations. Here, we used linear modelling to assess the influence of phonotactic probabilities on the brain responses to narrative speech measured with non-invasive EEG. We found that the relationship between continuous speech and EEG responses is best described when the stimulus descriptor includes phonotactic probabilities. This indicates that low-frequency cortical signals (<9 Hz) reflect the integration of phonotactic information during natural speech perception, providing us with a measure of phonotactic processing at the individual subject-level. Furthermore, phonotactics-related signals showed the strongest speech-EEG interactions at latencies of 100-500 ms, supporting a pre-lexical role of phonotactic information.

[1]  Matthew K. Leonard,et al.  The influence of lexical statistics on temporal lobe cortical dynamics during spoken word listening , 2015, Brain and Language.

[2]  T. A. Cartwright,et al.  Distributional regularity and phonotactic constraints are useful for segmentation , 1996, Cognition.

[3]  Kyle Gorman,et al.  Prosodylab-aligner: A tool for forced alignment of laboratory speech , 2011 .

[4]  H. Storkel,et al.  Learning new words: phonotactic probability in language development. , 2001, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[5]  John J. Foxe,et al.  Attentional Selection in a Cocktail Party Environment Can Be Decoded from Single-Trial EEG. , 2015, Cerebral cortex.

[6]  David B Pisoni,et al.  Perception of Wordlikeness: Effects of Segment Probability and Length on the Processing of Nonwords. , 2000, Journal of memory and language.

[7]  D. Poeppel,et al.  Cortical Tracking of Hierarchical Linguistic Structures in Connected Speech , 2015, Nature Neuroscience.

[8]  Arnaud Delorme,et al.  EEGLAB: an open source toolbox for analysis of single-trial EEG dynamics including independent component analysis , 2004, Journal of Neuroscience Methods.

[9]  Edmund C. Lalor,et al.  Causal cortical dynamics of a predictive enhancement of speech intelligibility , 2018, NeuroImage.

[10]  James L. McClelland,et al.  The TRACE model of speech perception , 1986, Cognitive Psychology.

[11]  Virginie van Wassenhove,et al.  Distinct contributions of low- and high-frequency neural oscillations to speech comprehension , 2017 .

[12]  Erich Schröger,et al.  Filter Effects and Filter Artifacts in the Analysis of Electrophysiological Data , 2012, Front. Psychology.

[13]  Mark Johnson,et al.  Learning OT constraint rankings using a maximum entropy model , 2003 .

[14]  A. Marantz,et al.  The time course of contextual cohort effects in auditory processing of category-ambiguous words: MEG evidence for a single “clash” as noun or verb , 2018 .

[15]  Rufin VanRullen,et al.  Four Common Conceptual Fallacies in Mapping the Time Course of Recognition , 2011, Front. Psychology.

[16]  L. Pylkkänen,et al.  Neuromagnetic Evidence for the Timing of Lexical Activation: An MEG Component Sensitive to Phonotactic Probability but Not to Neighborhood Density , 2002, Brain and Language.

[17]  H. Hotelling Relations Between Two Sets of Variates , 1936 .

[18]  D. Pisoni,et al.  Phonotactics, Neighborhood Activation, and Lexical Access for Spoken Words , 1999, Brain and Language.

[19]  Michael Hammond,et al.  Gradience, Phonotactics and the Lexicon in English Phonology , 2004 .

[20]  Lisa Davidson,et al.  Phonology, phonetics, or frequency: Influences on the production of non-native sequences , 2006, J. Phonetics.

[21]  J. Simon,et al.  Cortical entrainment to continuous speech: functional roles and interpretations , 2014, Front. Hum. Neurosci..

[22]  Todd M. Bailey,et al.  Determinants of wordlikeness: Phonotactics or lexical neighborhoods? , 2001 .

[23]  Noam Chomsky,et al.  The Sound Pattern of English , 1968 .

[24]  Angela D. Friederici,et al.  Phonotactic Knowledge and Lexical-Semantic Processing in One-year-olds: Brain Responses to Words and Nonsense Words in Picture Contexts , 2005, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[25]  J. Segui,et al.  Phonological mediation in visual masked priming: evidence from phonotactic repair. , 2008, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[26]  J. Mehler,et al.  New evidence for prelexical phonological processing in word recognition , 2001 .

[27]  Walter Ritter,et al.  Repetition and semantic priming of nonwords: implications for theories of N400 and word recognition. , 2004, Psychophysiology.

[28]  Emmanuel Dupoux,et al.  Where Do Illusory Vowels Come from , 2011 .

[29]  J. Connolly,et al.  Event-Related Potential Components Reflect Phonological and Semantic Processing of the Terminal Word of Spoken Sentences , 1994, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[30]  David Poeppel,et al.  Characterizing Neural Entrainment to Hierarchical Linguistic Units using Electroencephalography (EEG) , 2017, Front. Hum. Neurosci..

[31]  Edmund C. Lalor,et al.  Low-Frequency Cortical Entrainment to Speech Reflects Phoneme-Level Processing , 2015, Current Biology.

[32]  D. D. Greenwood,et al.  Auditory Masking and the Critical Band , 1961 .

[33]  Tania S. Zamuner,et al.  Phonotactics and Syllable Structure in Infant Speech Perception , 2016 .

[34]  P. Jusczyk,et al.  Infants' sensitivity to phonotactic patterns in the native language. , 1994 .

[35]  Tomas O Lentz,et al.  Categorical phonotactic knowledge filters second language input, but probabilistic phonotactic knowledge can still be acquired , 2015, Language and speech.

[36]  Emmanuel Dupoux,et al.  Electrophysiological Correlates of Phonological Processing: A Cross-linguistic Study , 2000, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[37]  Lisa Davidson Phonetic, phonemic, and phonological factors in cross-language discrimination of phonotactic contrasts. , 2011, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[38]  D. Munz Psychotherapie in der Psychiatrie: Ein Blick aus Sicht der Bundespsychotherapeutenkammer , 2017 .

[39]  P. Jusczyk,et al.  Phonotactic cues for segmentation of fluent speech by infants , 2001, Cognition.

[40]  Jan Wouters,et al.  Speech Intelligibility Predicted from Neural Entrainment of the Speech Envelope , 2018, bioRxiv.

[41]  Stephen G. Parker The sonority controversy , 2012 .

[42]  H. Storkel,et al.  Differentiating phonotactic probability and neighborhood density in adult word learning. , 2006, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[43]  Hellmuth Obrig,et al.  Electrophysiological evidence for modulation of lexical processing after repetitive exposure to foreign phonotactic rules , 2013, Brain and Language.

[44]  D. Pisoni,et al.  The Handbook of Speech Perception , 2004 .

[45]  Holly L Storkel,et al.  The Lexicon and Phonology: Interactions in Language Acquisition. , 2002, Language, speech, and hearing services in schools.

[46]  Edmund C Lalor,et al.  Cortical Measures of Phoneme-Level Speech Encoding Correlate with the Perceived Clarity of Natural Speech , 2018, eNeuro.

[47]  Edmund C. Lalor,et al.  Electrophysiological Correlates of Semantic Dissimilarity Reflect the Comprehension of Natural, Narrative Speech , 2017, Current Biology.

[48]  James White,et al.  Disentangling phonological well-formedness and attestedness: An ERP study of onset clusters in English , 2017 .

[49]  Barak A. Pearlmutter,et al.  The VESPA: A method for the rapid estimation of a visual evoked potential , 2006, NeuroImage.

[50]  Daniel D.E. Wong,et al.  Multiway Canonical Correlation Analysis of Brain Signals , 2018, bioRxiv.

[51]  D. Kemmerer,et al.  Phonotactics and Syllable Stress: Implications for the Processing of Spoken Nonsense Words , 1997, Language and speech.

[52]  J. Mehler,et al.  Epenthetic vowels in Japanese: A perceptual illusion? , 1999, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance.

[53]  M. Schlesewsky,et al.  Event-related Potentials Reflecting the Processing of Phonological Constraint Violations , 2009, Language and speech.

[54]  Bruce Hayes,et al.  A Maximum Entropy Model of Phonotactics and Phonotactic Learning , 2008, Linguistic Inquiry.

[55]  Lisa Davidson,et al.  Phonotactics and Articulatory Coordination Interact in Phonology: Evidence from Nonnative Production , 2006, Cogn. Sci..

[56]  S. Luck An Introduction to the Event-Related Potential Technique , 2005 .

[57]  Edmund C. Lalor,et al.  The Multivariate Temporal Response Function (mTRF) Toolbox: A MATLAB Toolbox for Relating Neural Signals to Continuous Stimuli , 2016, Front. Hum. Neurosci..

[58]  Matthew K. Leonard,et al.  Perceptual restoration of masked speech in human cortex , 2016, Nature Communications.

[59]  Kara D. Federmeier,et al.  Thirty years and counting: finding meaning in the N400 component of the event-related brain potential (ERP). , 2011, Annual review of psychology.

[60]  N. Sebastián-Gallés Biased to learn language. , 2007, Developmental science.

[61]  Denis Burnham,et al.  Atypical cortical entrainment to speech in the right hemisphere underpins phonemic deficits in dyslexia , 2018, NeuroImage.

[62]  Björn Herrmann,et al.  Neural Oscillations in Speech: Don't be Enslaved by the Envelope , 2012, Front. Hum. Neurosci..

[63]  P. Jusczyk,et al.  Phonotactic and Prosodic Effects on Word Segmentation in Infants , 1999, Cognitive Psychology.

[64]  Kenneth Ward Church,et al.  Phonological parsing and lexical retrieval , 1987, Cognition.

[65]  Tal Linzen,et al.  The role of morphology in phoneme prediction: Evidence from MEG , 2014, Brain and Language.

[66]  Holly L Storkel,et al.  The emerging lexicon of children with phonological delays: phonotactic constraints and probability in acquisition. , 2004, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[67]  Laura Winther Balling,et al.  Probability and surprisal in auditory comprehension of morphologically complex words , 2012, Cognition.

[68]  Matthew K. Leonard,et al.  Dynamic Encoding of Speech Sequence Probability in Human Temporal Cortex , 2015, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[69]  Keith Johnson,et al.  Phonetic Feature Encoding in Human Superior Temporal Gyrus , 2014, Science.

[70]  J. McQueen Segmentation of Continuous Speech Using Phonotactics , 1998 .

[71]  Matthew T. Carlson,et al.  Navigating conflicting phonotactic constraints in bilingual speech perception , 2016 .

[72]  Mónica A. Wagner,et al.  The phonotactic influence on the perception of a consonant cluster /pt/ by native English and native Polish listeners: A behavioral and event related potential (ERP) study , 2012, Brain and Language.

[73]  L. Elliot Hong,et al.  Transformation from auditory to linguistic representations across auditory cortex is rapid and attention dependent for continuous speech , 2018, bioRxiv.

[74]  Isabell Wartenburger,et al.  Implicit Processing of Phonotactic Cues: Evidence from Electrophysiological and Vascular Responses , 2011, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[75]  Marian Grendár,et al.  Maximum Entropy: Clearing up Mysteries , 2001, Entropy.

[76]  Lori L. Holt,et al.  Are there interactive processes in speech perception? , 2006, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[77]  Hellmuth Obrig,et al.  Universal and language-specific sublexical cues in speech perception: a novel electroencephalography-lesion approach. , 2016, Brain : a journal of neurology.

[78]  Wolfgang Senf,et al.  Psychotherapie in der Psychiatrie , 2005 .

[79]  R. Harald Baayen,et al.  Morphological effects in auditory word recognition: Evidence from Danish , 2008 .

[80]  Alain de Cheveigné,et al.  Decoding the auditory brain with canonical component analysis , 2017, NeuroImage.

[81]  John J. Foxe,et al.  Resolving precise temporal processing properties of the auditory system using continuous stimuli. , 2009, Journal of neurophysiology.

[82]  J. Simon,et al.  Neural coding of continuous speech in auditory cortex during monaural and dichotic listening. , 2012, Journal of neurophysiology.

[83]  Mary R. Newsome,et al.  The Beginnings of Word Segmentation in English-Learning Infants , 1999, Cognitive Psychology.

[84]  Edmund C. Lalor,et al.  Indexing cortical entrainment to natural speech at the phonemic level: Methodological considerations for applied research , 2017, Hearing Research.

[85]  Alec Marantz,et al.  A neural response sensitive to repetition and phonotactic probability: MEG investigations of lexical access , 2000 .

[86]  N. Mesgarani,et al.  Dynamic Encoding of Acoustic Features in Neural Responses to Continuous Speech , 2017, The Journal of Neuroscience.