Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

, Volume 22, Issue 1, pp 242–250 | Cite as

Perceptuo-motor effects of response-distractor compatibility in speech: beyond phonemic identity

Brief Report


Previous studies have found faster response times in a production task when a speaker perceives a distractor syllable that is identical to the syllable they are required to produce. No study has found such effects when a response and a distractor are not identical but share parameters below the level of the phoneme. Results from Experiment 1 show some evidence of a response-time effect of response-distractor voicing congruency. Experiment 2 showed a robust effect of articulator congruency: perceiving a distractor that has the same articulatory organ as that implicated in the planned motor response speeds up response times. These results necessitate a more direct and specific formulation of the perception-production link than warranted by previous experimental evidence. Implications for theories of speech production are also discussed.


Speech perception Speech production Motor planning/programming Psycholinguistics 


Author Note

This research was supported by NSF Grant 0951831 to KDR, and by ERC AdG 249440 to AIG.

Supplementary material

13423_2014_666_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (289 kb)
ESM 1 (PDF 288 kb)


  1. Bohland, J. W., Bullock, D., & Guenther, F. H. (2009). Neural representations and mechanisms for the performance of simple speech sequences. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 22(7), 1504–1529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Dell, G. S., Juliano, C., & Govindjee, A. (1993). Structure and content in language production: A theory of frame constrainst in phonological speech errors. Cognitive Science, 17, 149–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Diehl, R. L., Lotto, A. J., & Holt, L. L. (2004). Speech perception. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 149–179.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Fowler, C. A. (1986). An event approach to the study of speech perception from a direct-realist perspective. Journal of Phonetics, 14, 3–28.Google Scholar
  5. Galantucci, B., Fowler, C. A., & Goldstein, L. (2009). Perceptuomotor compatibility effects in speech. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 71(5), 1138–1149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Galantucci, B., Fowler, C. A., & Turvey, M. T. (2006). The motor theory of speech perception reviewed. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13(3), 361–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gelman, A., & Hill, J. (2007). Data analysis using regression and multilevel/hierarchical models. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Goldinger, S. D. (1998). Echoes of echoes? An episodic theory of lexical access. Psychological Review, 105(2), 251–279.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gordon, P. C., & Meyer, D. E. (1984). Perceptual-motor processing of phonetic features in speech. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 10(2), 153–178.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Kerzel, D., & Bekkering, H. (2000). Motor activation from visible speech: Evidence from stimulus response compatibility. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 26(2), 634–647.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Kornblum, S. (1994). The way irrelevant dimensions are processed depends on what they overlap with: The case of Stroop- and Simon-like stimuli. Psychological Research, 56(3), 130–135.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Levelt, W. J. M., Roelofs, A., & Meyer, A. S. (1999). A theory of lexical access in speech production. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22(1), 1–38.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Liberman, A. M., & Mattingly, I. G. (1985). The motor theory of speech perception revised. Cognition, 21, 1–36.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Mitterer, H., & Ernestus, M. (2008). The link between speech perception and production is phonological and abstract: Evidence from the shadowing task. Cognition, 109(1), 168–173.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Nielsen, K. Y. (2007). Implicit phonetic imitation is constrained by phonemic contrast. In J. Trouvain & W. J. Barry (Eds.), Proceedings of the 16th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (pp. 1961–1964). Germany: Saarbrücken.Google Scholar
  16. Ohala, J. J. (1996). Speech perception is hearing sounds, not tongues. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 99(3), 1718–1725.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Roelofs, A. (1997). The WEAVER model of word-form encoding in speech production. Cognition, 64, 249–284.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Roon, K. D., & Gafos, A. I. (2013). A dynamical model of the speech perception-production link. In M. Knauff, M. Pauen, N. Sebanz & I. Wachsmuth (eds.), 35th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (1241–1246). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
  19. Schriefers, H. J., Meyer, A. S., & Levelt, W. J. M. (1990). Exploring the time course of lexical access in language production: Picture-word interference studies. Journal of Memory and Language, 29, 86–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Tilsen, S. (2009). Subphonemic and cross-phonemic priming in vowel shadowing: Evidence for the involvement of exemplars in production. Journal of Phonetics, 37, 276–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Viviani, P. (2002). Motor competence in the perception of dynamic events: A tutorial. In W. Prinz & B. Hommel (Eds.), Common mechanisms in perception and action: Attention and performance XIX (pp. 406–442). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Yuen, I., Brysbaert, M., Davis, M. H., & Rastle, K. (2010). Activation of articulatory information in speech perception. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (Social Sciences), 107, 592–597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Speech Production LaboratoryThe Graduate Center of the City University of New YorkNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.Haskins LaboratoriesNew HavenUSA
  3. 3.Department of LinguisticsUniversität PotsdamPotsdamGermany

Personalised recommendations