4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Neural circuitry underlying sentence-level linguistic prosody

期刊

NEUROIMAGE
卷 28, 期 2, 页码 417-428

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2005.06.002

关键词

fMRI; human auditory processing; speech perception; laterality; language; prosody; intonation; contrastive stress; emphatic stress; Mandarin Chinese

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigates the neural substrates underlying the perception of two sentence-level prosodic phenomena in Mandarin Chinese: contrastive stress (initial vs. final emphasis position) and intonation (declarative vs. interrogative modality). In an fMRI experiment, Chinese and English listeners were asked to selectively attend to either stress or intonation in paired 3-word sentences, and make speeded-response discrimination judgments. Between-group comparisons revealed that the Chinese group exhibited significantly greater activity in the left supramarginal gyrus and posterior middle temporal gyrus relative to the English group for both tasks. These same two regions showed a leftward asymmetry in the stress task for the Chinese group only. For both language groups, right-ward asymmetries were observed in the middle portion of the middle frontal gyros across tasks. All task effects involved greater activity for the stress task as compared to intonation. A left-sided task effect was observed in the posterior middle temporal gyrus for the Chinese group only. Both language groups exhibited a task effect bilaterally in the intraparietal sulcus. These findings support the emerging view that speech prosody perception involves a dynamic interplay among widely distributed regions not only within a single hemisphere but also between the two hemispheres. This model of speech prosody processing emphasizes the role of right hemisphere regions for complex-sound analysis, whereas task-dependent regions in the left hemisphere predominate when language processing is required. (c) 2005 Elsevier Inc. 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

4.7
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