Skip to main content

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

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review volume 22, pages 242–250 (2015)Cite this article

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Notes

  1. Further details of excluded trials for both experiments and full details of the statistical analyses presented in Tables 2 and 4 can be found in the Online supplemental materials.

References

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diehl, R. L., Lotto, A. J., & Holt, L. L. (2004). Speech perception. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 149–179.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Galantucci, B., Fowler, C. A., & Goldstein, L. (2009). Perceptuomotor compatibility effects in speech. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 71(5), 1138–1149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galantucci, B., Fowler, C. A., & Turvey, M. T. (2006). The motor theory of speech perception reviewed. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13(3), 361–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gelman, A., & Hill, J. (2007). Data analysis using regression and multilevel/hierarchical models. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldinger, S. D. (1998). Echoes of echoes? An episodic theory of lexical access. Psychological Review, 105(2), 251–279.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Liberman, A. M., & Mattingly, I. G. (1985). The motor theory of speech perception revised. Cognition, 21, 1–36.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Ohala, J. J. (1996). Speech perception is hearing sounds, not tongues. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 99(3), 1718–1725.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roelofs, A. (1997). The WEAVER model of word-form encoding in speech production. Cognition, 64, 249–284.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author Note

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

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Speech Production Laboratory, The Graduate Center of the City University of New York, 365 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY, 10016, USA

    Kevin D. Roon

  2. Haskins Laboratories, New Haven, CT, USA

    Kevin D. Roon & Adamantios I. Gafos

  3. Department of Linguistics, Universität Potsdam, Potsdam, Germany

    Adamantios I. Gafos

Authors
  1. Kevin D. Roon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Adamantios I. Gafos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kevin D. Roon.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

ESM 1

(PDF 288 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Roon, K.D., Gafos, A.I. Perceptuo-motor effects of response-distractor compatibility in speech: beyond phonemic identity. Psychon Bull Rev 22, 242–250 (2015). https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-014-0666-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-014-0666-6

Keywords

  • Speech perception
  • Speech production
  • Motor planning/programming
  • Psycholinguistics