1 / 53

Short-Term Reorganization of Auditory Analysis Induced by Phonetic Experience Liebenthal et al. (2003). JoCN.

Short-Term Reorganization of Auditory Analysis Induced by Phonetic Experience Liebenthal et al. (2003). JoCN. Audrey Kittredge 593: Neuroimaging of Language. MRI: physics. Hydrogen nuclei act as magnets (spinning, charged particle). MRI: physics.

evelia
Download Presentation

Short-Term Reorganization of Auditory Analysis Induced by Phonetic Experience Liebenthal et al. (2003). JoCN.

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Short-Term Reorganization of Auditory Analysis Induced by Phonetic ExperienceLiebenthal et al. (2003). JoCN. Audrey Kittredge 593: Neuroimaging of Language

  2. MRI: physics • Hydrogen nuclei act as magnets (spinning, charged particle)

  3. MRI: physics • In strong magnetic field: spin-axes form vector parallel to field

  4. MRI: procedure • Radio Frequency pulse • Changes direction and strength of vector • Eventually, nuclei relax and vector returns to original position • As nuclei relax, give out pulse • Pulse type depends on water/fat ratio of tissue --> MRI images!

  5. Functional MRI • Hemoglobin shows up better than deoxyhemoglobin on MRI SO • Brain areas with more oxygenated blood will show up better (BOLD)

  6. Connection to neural activity? • Increase in net neural activity --> increase in oxygenated blood supply (slow) • Quick succession of images: BOLD signal at various times

  7. Pros • Good spatial resolution • Less risky, faster acquisition than PET • Event-related design

  8. Cons • Poor temporal resolution • BOLD signal degraded near air/bone boundary • Movement artifacts • High speed data acquisition = noisy!

  9. Phonetic perception • How does this occur? • Automatic phonetic analysis module (Liberman & Mattingly, 1989) • Stimulus-independent auditory analysis (Kluender & Greenberg, 1989)

  10. Past Research • PET, fMRI studies • Speech vs nonspeech: superior temporal cortex

  11. Problem! • Confound: perception or stimuli? • Goal: study perception mode independent of stimulus properties • How do we do this?…

  12. …Sinewave speech! • Sinewave example

  13. Original sentence • “The steady drip is worse than a drenching rain”

  14. Sinewave speech: properties • Sinusoid fit to center frequency and amplitude (over time) of F1-F3 or F4 • Result: rapidly changing pure tones • Lack fine-grained acoustic properties of speech

  15. Past studies on sinewave speech • Remez et al. (1981): • “Describe”: most say non-speech • “Transcribe”: most write all/some of sentence correctly

  16. Tone-matching Task(Remez et al., 2001) • Stimuli • Sinewave word e.g. juice • Isolated T2 from T123/4 complex • Task: is tone constituent of complex? • Listeners can do this… • When uninformed (not speech) • While matching tone complex to printed word • Difficult task!

  17. Creation of stimuli • Phonetic stimulus (sinewave word) • 3 lowest formants = 1 sinewave each • Tone probe • “True”: from word • “False”: from other sinewave word • Nonphonetic stimulus • T1 and T3 temporally reversed

  18. Spectrogram of Stimuli

  19. Pilot studies • Phonetic transcribed 52.1% accuracy, multiple choice 89.5% accuracy • Rated as “Clearly identifiable word”: • 61% phonetic • 22% nonphonetic • “Nonspeech”: • 58% nonphonetic • 20% phonetic

  20. Stimuli: summary • 288 stimuli total • 108 pairs of phonetic, nonphonetic stimuli • 1/3 repeated • 1/2 trials = false

  21. Experimental Design Practice Naïve 1 Naïve 2 Phonetic Practice Informed 1 Informed 2

  22. Procedure • Practice • Stimuli: arbitrarily composed sinusoids • Sinewaves: same/diff pitch contour? • Tone-matching task (T2-T1234) • Naïve condition • “single tone”, “tone complex” • 2 blocks

  23. Procedure • Phonetic practice • Sinewave stimuli: 8 sentences, 18 words • Chose from 4 transcriptions • Feedback given for every 5th sentence • Accuracy data collected • Informed condition • “words” • 2 blocks

  24. Results: RT • Phonetic: • Test Block p < .o4 (N1-N2 p < .02, N2-I1 p < .03, I1-I2 p < .05) • Nonphonetic • Test Block p < .001 (N1-N2 p < .01) • In naïve condition, effect of stimulus type p < .04

  25. Results: Accuracy • Phonetic: • No significant effect of Test Block p < .11 • Nonphonetic • No significant effect of Test Block p < .53 • In naïve condition, no effect of stimulus type p < .07

  26. Results: Phonetic Form Practice • Sentence task: 84 +/- 21% accuracy • Words: 60 +/- 16% accuracy • Chance = 25% in both tasks

  27. Results: Subjective Reports • 29/31 unaware of phonetic quality during naïve blocks • 13/31 recognized words during informed blocks

  28. Conclusions: Behavior • Phonetic awareness interferes with task • Naïve: subjects perceived only auditory form • Informed: subjects perceived both, focused on auditory • NO explanation for stimulus RT difference in Naïve

  29. Within each block… 9s 9s 9s 9s 9s 9s 9s 9s 2 phonetic trials 2 nonphonetic trials Baseline (silence) Clustered image acquisition

  30. Image acquisition • 18 images per trial type per block • 36 images per condition/trial type • E.g. Naïve, phonetic

  31. fMRI Images • 16 slices: • Axially oriented (horizontal) • Contiguous • 3x3x4mm voxels • Slice coverage: • Most of temporal lobes • Part of frontal and parietal lobes • Occipital lobe • Anatomical (MRI) images (1x1x1mm)

  32. fMRI analysis: individuals • AFNI software package • Trial - Baseline-->BOLD difference maps • Difference maps: • averaged (BOLD vs baseline) • Voxel-wise ANOVA (sorted by trial type and condition)

  33. fMRI analysis: averaging • Individual statistical maps transformed into standard space • Talairach brain • Complicated statistics, smoothing… • t values at each voxel averaged across subjects

  34. fMRI analysis: significance testing • Randomization testing: • t values >/= .37 significant • uncorrected voxel-wise p < .001 • Activation foci < 300 microL removed

  35. fMRI Result Summary

  36. fMRI Images

  37. Phonetic: Informed-Naive • Left Heschl’s gyrus (HG/BA42) • Left posterior superior temporal gyrus (STG/BA 42/22) • Right HG/BA42

  38. Phonetic Experience • Decreased activation = decreased task execution • Underlies reduced performance • Interference masks information like noise • STG • Primate HG/post STG analogues involved in complex sound analysis, auditory STM • Left-lateralized • Specialization for speech

  39. Phonetic Experience cont’d • No shift to other areas • No conscious phonetic perception • Phonetic experience induces “short-term functional reorganization of auditory analysis” and is contingent on “dynamic structure”

  40. Phonetic: Informed-Naive • Dorsomedial thalamic nucleus • Superior frontal gyrus (BA8) • Left middle frontal gyrus (MFG/BA10)

  41. Unexplained Results • Dorsomedial thalamic nucleus, medial prefrontal cortex: • Areas with reciprocal connections to each other and ST area • Connected neural system… • Engaged in task • Sensitive to interference

  42. Nonphonetic: Informed-Naive • Left posterior STG (BA 42/22)

  43. Phonetic: Blocks2-Blocks1 • Left middle frontal gyrus (BA9)

  44. Nonphonetic: Blocks1-Blocks2 • Left inferior frontal gyrus (IFG/BA44)

  45. Proficiency Effects • Left IFG, MFG: • Initial difficulty in verbal production task (Raichle et al., 1994) • Not cause of Informed-Naïve difference (no anatomical overlap)

  46. What do YOU think?

  47. Conclusions…? • “Centrality” of this function • Naïve: Phonetic vs nonphonetic RT • Reorganization contingent on speech? • Decreased activation: underlies reduced performance? • Proficiency/Informed: frontal overlap?

  48. Methodology…? • Response/accuracy inclusion criteria? • RT/accuracy data not parallel • RT: correct, incorrect, true, false trials • Word length? • Age variation (18-57)? • Naïve: phonetic vs nonphonetic? (fMRI)

  49. Some questions… • Role of thalamus/medial frontal areas? • Task difficulty --/--> activation increase

  50. Some more questions… • Given phonetic practice, is reorganization entirely stimulus-driven? • How generalizable to normal speech-nonspeech analysis? • Original question: automatic phonetic module or auditory analysis?

More Related