4.7 Article

Decoding Articulatory Features from fMRI Responses in Dorsal Speech Regions

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROSCIENCE
卷 35, 期 45, 页码 15015-15025

出版社

SOC NEUROSCIENCE
DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0977-15.2015

关键词

articulatory gestures; auditory cortex; fMRI; MVPA; sensorimotor; speech perception

资金

  1. European Union Marie Curie Initial Training Network Grant [PITN-GA-2009-238593]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The brain's circuitry for perceiving and producing speech may show a notable level of overlap that is crucial for normal development and behavior. The extent to which sensorimotor integration plays a role in speech perception remains highly controversial, however. Methodological constraints related to experimental designs and analysis methods have so far prevented the disentanglement of neural responses to acoustic versus articulatory speech features. Using a passive listening paradigm and multivariate decoding of single-trial fMRI responses to spoken syllables, weinvestigated brain-based generalization of articulatory features (place and manner of articulation, and voicing) beyond their acoustic (surface) form in adult human listeners. For example, we trained a classifier to discriminate place of articulation within stop syllables (e.g., /pa/vs/ta/) and tested whether this training generalizes to fricatives (e.g., /fa/vs/sa/). This novel approach revealed generalization of place and manner of articulation at multiple cortical levels within the dorsal auditory pathway, including auditory, sensorimotor, motor, and somatosensory regions, suggesting the representation of sensorimotor information. Additionally, generalization of voicing included the right anterior superior temporal sulcus associated with the perception of human voices as well as somatosensory regions bilaterally. Our findings highlight the close connection between brain systems for speech perception and production, and in particular, indicate the availability of articulatory codes during passive speech perception.

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