Spotlight
How phonetically selective is the human auditory cortex?

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2014.04.001Get rights and content

Responses in the human auditory cortex to natural speech reveal a dual character. Often they are categorically selective to phonetic elements, serving as a gateway to abstract linguistic representations. But at other times they reflect a distributed generalized spectrotemporal analysis of the acoustic features, as seen in early mammalian auditory cortices.

Section snippets

Acknowledgments

This work was funded by National Institutes of Health (NIH) grant R01 DC007657 and an Advanced European Research Council (ERC) grant from the EU (295603).

References (10)

  • A.M. Liberman et al.

    The motor theory of speech perception revised

    Cognition

    (1985)
  • N. Mesgarani

    Phonetic feature encoding in human superior temporal gyrus

    Science

    (2014)
  • K.N. Stevens

    Toward a model for lexical access based on acoustic landmarks and distinctive features

    J. Acoust. Soc. Am.

    (2002)
  • J.E. Cutting et al.

    Categories and boundaries in speech and music

    Percept. Psychophys.

    (1974)
  • M. Steinschneider

    Representation of the voice onset time (VOT) speech parameter in population responses within primary auditory cortex of the awake monkey

    J. Acoust. Soc. Am.

    (2003)
There are more references available in the full text version of this article.

Cited by (3)

  • Low-frequency cortical entrainment to speech reflects phoneme-level processing

    2015, Current Biology
    Citation Excerpt :

    Specifically, based on recordings from the superior temporal gyrus (STG) in epilepsy patients, high gamma frequency (75–150 Hz) activity was shown to encode an acoustic-phonetic representation of speech. Based on this, it has been suggested that the STG may be a transitional stage in the auditory processing hierarchy, early enough to still encode the acoustic features of speech but high enough to exhibit response selectivity to complex spectrotemporal patterns [31]. The fact that the ECoG recordings were shown to be optimally sensitive to intermediate acoustic-phonetic speech features at an intermediate response time lag of around 150 ms [8] agrees reasonably well with the increased discriminative power of our EEG responses at this latency.

  • Phonemes: Lexical access and beyond

    2018, Psychonomic Bulletin and Review
View full text