The role of isochrony in speech perception in noise.
Journal
Scientific reports
ISSN: 2045-2322
Titre abrégé: Sci Rep
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101563288
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
11 11 2020
11 11 2020
Historique:
received:
29
04
2020
accepted:
28
10
2020
entrez:
12
11
2020
pubmed:
13
11
2020
medline:
23
4
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The role of isochrony in speech-the hypothetical division of speech units into equal duration intervals-has been the subject of a long-standing debate. Current approaches in neurosciences have brought new perspectives in that debate through the theoretical framework of predictive coding and cortical oscillations. Here we assess the comparative roles of naturalness and isochrony in the intelligibility of speech in noise for French and English, two languages representative of two well-established contrastive rhythm classes. We show that both top-down predictions associated with the natural timing of speech and to a lesser extent bottom-up predictions associated with isochrony at a syllabic timescale improve intelligibility. We found a similar pattern of results for both languages, suggesting that temporal characterisation of speech from different rhythm classes could be unified around a single core speech unit, with neurophysiologically defined duration and linguistically anchored temporal location. Taken together, our results suggest that isochrony does not seem to be a main dimension of speech processing, but may be a consequence of neurobiological processing constraints, manifesting in behavioural performance and ultimately explaining why isochronous stimuli occupy a particular status in speech and human perception in general.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33177590
doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-76594-1
pii: 10.1038/s41598-020-76594-1
pmc: PMC7658253
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
19580Subventions
Organisme : European Research Council
ID : 339152
Pays : International
Références
Front Psychol. 2012 Jul 16;3:238
pubmed: 22811672
Front Psychol. 2012 Sep 06;3:320
pubmed: 22973251
Curr Opin Neurobiol. 2010 Apr;20(2):172-6
pubmed: 20307966
Nat Neurosci. 2012 Mar 18;15(4):511-7
pubmed: 22426255
Trends Neurosci. 2009 Jan;32(1):9-18
pubmed: 19012975
Neuropsychologia. 2012 Sep;50(11):2652-8
pubmed: 22828660
J Neurosci. 2009 Jun 17;29(24):7869-76
pubmed: 19535598
Trends Cogn Sci. 2018 Oct;22(10):870-882
pubmed: 30266147
J Neurosci. 2013 Mar 27;33(13):5728-35
pubmed: 23536086
Biom J. 2008 Jun;50(3):346-63
pubmed: 18481363
Neuron. 2007 Jun 21;54(6):1001-10
pubmed: 17582338
Acta Psychol (Amst). 2015 Feb;155:43-50
pubmed: 25553343
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2015 Dec 29;112(52):15833-7
pubmed: 26668393
Science. 2008 Apr 4;320(5872):110-3
pubmed: 18388295
Nat Neurosci. 2016 Jan;19(1):158-64
pubmed: 26642090
Front Hum Neurosci. 2016 Aug 31;10:430
pubmed: 27630552
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2001 Nov 6;98(23):13367-72
pubmed: 11698688
Nat Commun. 2014 Sep 02;5:4694
pubmed: 25178489
Front Psychol. 2015 Oct 27;6:1663
pubmed: 26579044
Psychol Sci. 2015 Jul;26(7):1006-13
pubmed: 25968248
Front Psychol. 2012 Oct 05;3:364
pubmed: 23060833
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012 Jul 17;109(29):11854-9
pubmed: 22753470
Front Psychol. 2013 Mar 20;4:138
pubmed: 23519170
J Neurosci. 2011 Jul 13;31(28):10234-40
pubmed: 21753000
Front Psychol. 2014 Jul 04;5:652
pubmed: 25071631
J Neurosci. 2017 Aug 16;37(33):7930-7938
pubmed: 28729443
Elife. 2015 May 29;4:e06213
pubmed: 26023831
Cereb Cortex. 2013 Jun;23(6):1378-87
pubmed: 22610394
Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2018 Mar;86:150-165
pubmed: 29223770