4.7 Article

Cerebral mechanisms of prosodic sensory integration using low-frequency bands of connected speech

期刊

HUMAN BRAIN MAPPING
卷 26, 期 3, 页码 157-169

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/hbm.20147

关键词

connected speech perception; low-pass filtered speech; pitch modulations; hemispheric lateralization; neuronal network; fMRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Even if speech perception has been reported to involve both left and right hemispheres, converging data have posited the existence of a functional asymmetry at the level of secondary auditory cortices. Using fMRI in 12 right-handed French men listening passively to long connected speech stimuli, we addressed the question of neuronal networks involved in the integration of low frequency bands of speech by comparing 1) differences in brain activity in two listening conditions (IN, NF) differing in the integration of pitch modulations (in FN, low frequencies, obtained by a low-pass filter, are addressed to the left ear while the whole acoustic message is simultaneously addressed to the right ear, NF being the reverse position); 2) differences in brain activity induced by high and low degrees of prosodic expression (expressive vs. flat); and 3) effects of the same connected speech stimulus in the two listening conditions. Each stimulus induced a specific cerebral network, the flat one weakening activations which were mainly reduced to the bilateral STG for both listening conditions. In the expressive condition, the specific sensory integration FN results in an increase of the articulatory loop and new recruitments such as right BA6-44, left BA39-40, the left posterior insula and the bilateral BA30. This finding may be accounted for by the existence of temporal windows differing both in length and in acoustic cues decoding, strengthening the asymmetric sampling in time hypothesis posited by Poeppel (Speech Commun 2003; 41:245-255). Such an improvement of prosodic integration could find applications in the rehabilitation of some speech disturbances.

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