4.4 Article

Cortical activity during speech and non-speech oromotor tasks: A magnetoencephalography (MEG) study

期刊

NEUROSCIENCE LETTERS
卷 527, 期 1, 页码 34-39

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.neulet.2012.08.030

关键词

MEG; Motor planning; Speech production

资金

  1. Canadian Institutes of Health Research operating grant [CIHR MOP-89961]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We used whole-head magnetoencephalography to investigate cortical activity during two oromotor activities foundational to speech production. 13 adults performed mouth opening and phoneme (/pa/) production tasks to a visual cue. Jaw movements were tracked with an ultrasound-emitting device. Trials were time-locked to both stimulus onset and peak of jaw displacement. An event-related beamformer source reconstruction algorithm was used to detect areas of cortical activity for each condition. Beam-former output was submitted to iterative K-means clustering analyses. The time course of neural activity at each cluster centroid was computed for each individual and condition. Peaks were identified and latencies submitted for statistical analysis to reveal the relative timing of activity in each brain region. Stimulus locked activations for the mouth open task included a progression from left cuneus to left frontal and then right pre-central gyrus. Phoneme generation revealed the same sequence but with bilateral frontal activation. When time locked to jaw displacement, the mouth open condition showed left frontal followed by right frontal-temporal areas. Phoneme generation showed a complicated sequence of bilateral temporal and frontal areas. This study used three unique approaches (beamforming, clustering and jaw tracking) to demonstrate the temporal progression of neural activations that underlie the motor control of two simple oromotor tasks. These findings have implications for understanding clinical conditions with deficits in articulatory control or motor speech planning. (C) 2012 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据