The effect of sublexical and lexical frequency on speech production: An fMRI investigation

There is no consensus regarding the fundamental phonetic units that underlie speech production. There is, however, general agreement that the frequency of occurrence of these units is a significant factor. Investigators often use the effects of manipulating frequency to support the importance of particular units. Studies of pseudoword production have been used to show the importance of sublexical units, such as initial syllables, phonemes, and biphones. However, it is not clear that these units play the same role when the production of pseudowords is compared to the production of real words. In this study, participants overtly repeated real and pseudowords that were similar for length, complexity, and initial syllable frequency while undergoing functional magnetic resonance imaging. Compared to real words, production of pseudowords produced greater activation in much of the speech production network, including bilateral inferior frontal cortex, precentral gyri and supplementary motor areas and left superior temporal cortex and anterior insula. Only middle right frontal gyrus showed greater activation for real words than for pseudowords. Compared to a no-speech control condition, production of pseudowords or real words resulted in activation of all of the areas shown to comprise the speech production network. Our data, in conjunction with previous studies, suggest that the unit that is identified as the basic unit of speech production is influenced by the nature of the speech that is being studied, i.e., real words as compared to other real words, pseudowords as compared to other pseudowords, or real words as compared to pseudowords.

[1]  R. Varley,et al.  Moving up from the segment: A comment on Aichert and Ziegler’s Syllable frequency and syllable structure in apraxia of speech, Brain and Language, 88, 148–159, 2004 , 2006, Brain and Language.

[2]  Matthew H. Davis,et al.  Neural Response Suppression Predicts Repetition Priming of Spoken Words and Pseudowords , 2006, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[3]  R W Cox,et al.  Event‐related fMRI of tasks involving brief motion , 1999, Human brain mapping.

[4]  Mark D'Esposito,et al.  A functional MRI study of the influence of practice on component processes of working memory , 2004, NeuroImage.

[5]  M. Carreiras,et al.  Effects of Syllable Frequency and Syllable Neighborhood Frequency in Visual Word Recognition , 1998 .

[6]  Joan L. Bybee,et al.  PHONOLOGICAL EVIDENCE FOR EXEMPLAR STORAGE OF MULTIWORD SEQUENCES , 2002, Studies in Second Language Acquisition.

[7]  William D. Raymond,et al.  The effects of collocational strength and contextual predictability in lexical production 1 , 1999 .

[8]  Michael Barlow,et al.  Usage-based models of language , 2000 .

[9]  Prahlad Gupta,et al.  Does neighborhood density influence repetition latency for nonwords? Separating the effects of density and duration , 2004 .

[10]  A. Kelly,et al.  Human functional neuroimaging of brain changes associated with practice. , 2005, Cerebral cortex.

[11]  R. C. Oldfield.  THE ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS OF HANDEDNESS , 1971 .

[12]  G. Meek,et al.  Comparison of the t vs. Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test for Likert Scale Data & Small Samples , 2007 .

[13]  Wolfram Ziegler,et al.  Syllable frequency and syllable structure in apraxia of speech , 2004, Brain and Language.

[14]  Mirjam Ernestus,et al.  Lexical frequency and acoustic reduction in spoken Dutch. , 2005, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[15]  P. Luce,et al.  Increases in phonotactic probability facilitate spoken nonword repetition. , 2005 .

[16]  M. Carreiras,et al.  Naming pseudowords in Spanish: Effects of syllable frequency , 2004, Brain and Language.

[17]  P. Strick,et al.  Motor areas of the medial wall: a review of their location and functional activation. , 1996, Cerebral cortex.

[18]  G. Dell,et al.  Evidence for the involvement of a nonlexical route in the repetition of familiar words: A comparison of single and dual route models of auditory repetition , 2004, Cognitive neuropsychology.

[19]  M. Erb,et al.  The influence of syllable onset complexity and syllable frequency on speech motor control , 2008, Brain and Language.

[20]  Mark S. Cohen,et al.  Parametric Analysis of fMRI Data Using Linear Systems Methods , 1997, NeuroImage.

[21]  Sandra P. Whiteside,et al.  What is the underlying impairment in acquired apraxia of speech , 2001 .

[22]  Willem J. M. Levelt,et al.  Effects of syllable preparation and syllable frequency in speech production: Further evidence for syllabic units at a post-lexical level , 2009 .

[23]  G. Glover,et al.  Spiral‐in/out BOLD fMRI for increased SNR and reduced susceptibility artifacts , 2001, Magnetic resonance in medicine.

[24]  Joan L. Bybee,et al.  The effect of usage on degrees of constituency: the reduction of don't in English , 1999 .

[25]  W. Grodd,et al.  Articulatory/Phonetic Sequencing at the Level of the Anterior Perisylvian Cortex: A Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) Study , 2000, Brain and Language.

[26]  Anthony R. McIntosh,et al.  Clustered functional MRI of overt speech production , 2006, NeuroImage.

[27]  F. Alario,et al.  On the locus of the syllable frequency effect in speech production , 2006 .

[28]  Barry Horwitz,et al.  From phonemes to articulatory codes: an fMRI study of the role of Broca's area in speech production. , 2009, Cerebral cortex.

[29]  Frank H. Guenther,et al.  An fMRI investigation of syllable sequence production , 2006, NeuroImage.

[30]  Edward E. Smith,et al.  Neuroimaging studies of working memory: , 2003, Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience.

[31]  W. Levelt,et al.  Do speakers have access to a mental syllabary? , 1994, Cognition.

[32]  Jean-Luc Nespoulous,et al.  Syllables as units in speech production: Data from aphasia , 2003, Brain and Language.

[33]  L. Shuster,et al.  An fMRI investigation of covertly and overtly produced mono- and multisyllabic words , 2005, Brain and Language.

[34]  G. Dell,et al.  Speech errors, phonotactic constraints, and implicit learning: a study of the role of experience in language production. , 2000, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[35]  P. Luce,et al.  When Words Compete: Levels of Processing in Perception of Spoken Words , 1998 .

[36]  D. Tomasi,et al.  Practice-induced changes of brain function during visual attention: a parametric fMRI study at 4 Tesla , 2004, NeuroImage.

[37]  Michael S Vitevitch,et al.  A Web-based interface to calculate phonotactic probability for words and nonwords in English , 2004, Behavior research methods, instruments, & computers : a journal of the Psychonomic Society, Inc.

[38]  R. Varley,et al.  A Reconceptualisation of Apraxia of Speech: A Synthesis of Evidence , 1998, Cortex.

[39]  R W Cox,et al.  AFNI: software for analysis and visualization of functional magnetic resonance neuroimages. , 1996, Computers and biomedical research, an international journal.

[40]  Willem J. M. Levelt,et al.  A theory of lexical access in speech production , 1999, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[41]  Steven A. Jax,et al.  The problem of serial order in behavior: Lashley's legacy. , 2007, Human movement science.

[42]  B. Erman,et al.  The idiom principle and the open choice principle , 2000 .

[43]  R. C. Oldfield.  The assessment and analysis of handedness: the Edinburgh inventory. , 1971, Neuropsychologia.

[44]  Willem J. M. Levelt,et al.  Effects of syllable frequency in speech production , 2006, Cognition.