Distinct but integrated processing of lexical tones, vowels, and consonants in tonal language speech perception: Evidence from mismatch negativity

2022 ◽  
Vol 61 ◽  
pp. 101039
Keke Yu ◽  
Yuan Chen ◽  
Menglin Wang ◽  
Ruiming Wang ◽  
Li Li
2020 ◽  
Vol 63 (2) ◽  
pp. 487-498
Puisan Wong ◽  
Man Wai Cheng

Purpose Theoretical models and substantial research have proposed that general auditory sensitivity is a developmental foundation for speech perception and language acquisition. Nonetheless, controversies exist about the effectiveness of general auditory training in improving speech and language skills. This research investigated the relationships among general auditory sensitivity, phonemic speech perception, and word-level speech perception via the examination of pitch and lexical tone perception in children. Method Forty-eight typically developing 4- to 6-year-old Cantonese-speaking children were tested on the discrimination of the pitch patterns of lexical tones in synthetic stimuli, discrimination of naturally produced lexical tones, and identification of lexical tone in familiar words. Results The findings revealed that accurate lexical tone discrimination and identification did not necessarily entail the accurate discrimination of nonlinguistic stimuli that followed the pitch levels and pitch shapes of lexical tones. Although pitch discrimination and tone discrimination abilities were strongly correlated, accuracy in pitch discrimination was lower than that in tone discrimination, and nonspeech pitch discrimination ability did not precede linguistic tone discrimination in the developmental trajectory. Conclusions Contradicting the theoretical models, the findings of this study suggest that general auditory sensitivity and speech perception may not be causally or hierarchically related. The finding that accuracy in pitch discrimination is lower than that in tone discrimination suggests that comparable nonlinguistic auditory perceptual ability may not be necessary for accurate speech perception and language learning. The results cast doubt on the use of nonlinguistic auditory perceptual training to improve children's speech, language, and literacy abilities.

2010 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
pp. 329-339 ◽  
Torsten Rahne ◽  
Michael Ziese ◽  
Dorothea Rostalski ◽  
Roland Mühler

This paper describes a logatome discrimination test for the assessment of speech perception in cochlear implant users (CI users), based on a multilingual speech database, the Oldenburg Logatome Corpus, which was originally recorded for the comparison of human and automated speech recognition. The logatome discrimination task is based on the presentation of 100 logatome pairs (i.e., nonsense syllables) with balanced representations of alternating “vowel-replacement” and “consonant-replacement” paradigms in order to assess phoneme confusions. Thirteen adult normal hearing listeners and eight adult CI users, including both good and poor performers, were included in the study and completed the test after their speech intelligibility abilities were evaluated with an established sentence test in noise. Furthermore, the discrimination abilities were measured electrophysiologically by recording the mismatch negativity (MMN) as a component of auditory event-related potentials. The results show a clear MMN response only for normal hearing listeners and CI users with good performance, correlating with their logatome discrimination abilities. Higher discrimination scores for vowel-replacement paradigms than for the consonant-replacement paradigms were found. We conclude that the logatome discrimination test is well suited to monitor the speech perception skills of CI users. Due to the large number of available spoken logatome items, the Oldenburg Logatome Corpus appears to provide a useful and powerful basis for further development of speech perception tests for CI users.

2015 ◽  
Vol 66 ◽  
pp. 48-54 ◽  
Kasper Eskelund ◽  
Ewen N. MacDonald ◽  
Tobias S. Andersen

2019 ◽  
Vol 23 (03) ◽  
pp. e292-e298
Natalia Martinez Fernandes ◽  
Daniela Gil ◽  
Marisa Frasson de Azevedo

Introduction The mismatch negativity (MMN) is a negative long-latency auditory potential elicited by any discriminable change in a repetitive aspect of auditory stimulation. This evoked potential can provide cortical information about the sound processing, including in children who use cochlear implants. Objective To identify MMN characteristics regarding latency, amplitude, and wave area in cochlear implanted children and to identify associations among language development, speech perception and family involvement. Methods This is a descriptive, observational, cross-sectional study, which compared two groups: study group—children with cochlear implant, and control group—hearing children. The children were submitted to MMN evaluation with non-verbal tone burst stimulus, differing in frequency in sound field at 70 dBHL, with SmartEP equipment (Intelligent Hearing Systems, Miami, FL, USA). Speech perception and language development questionnaires were also applied, and the family participation in the rehabilitation process was classified. Results The occurrence of MMN was 73.3% for the control group and 53.3% for the study group. Values of latency, amplitude and area of MMN of children using cochlear implants were similar to those of hearing children, and did not differ between groups. The occurrence of MMN was not correlated to the variables of hearing, language and family categories. Conclusion Children with cochlear implants showed similar MMN responses to those of the children in the control group, with mean latency, amplitude and area of 208.9 ms (±12.8), -2.37 μV (±0.38) and 86.5 μVms (±23.4), respectively. There was no correlation between the presence of MMN and children's performance in the auditory and language development tests or family involvement during rehabilitation.

Neuroscience ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 170 (1) ◽  
pp. 223-231 ◽  
J. Xi ◽  
L. Zhang ◽  
H. Shu ◽  
Y. Zhang ◽  
P. Li

2004 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 160-162 ◽  
Eila Lonka ◽  
Teija Kujala ◽  
Anne Lehtokoski ◽  
Reijo Johansson ◽  
Satu Rimmanen ◽  

2001 ◽  
Vol 40 (1) ◽  
pp. 77-87 ◽  
Gerd Schulte-Körne ◽  
Wolfgang Deimel ◽  
Jürgen Bartling ◽  
Helmut Remschmidt

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document