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, log in via an institution to check access.
Notes
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.
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.
Diehl, R. L., Lotto, A. J., & Holt, L. L. (2004). Speech perception. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 149–179.
Fowler, C. A. (1986). An event approach to the study of speech perception from a direct-realist perspective. Journal of Phonetics, 14, 3–28.
Galantucci, B., Fowler, C. A., & Goldstein, L. (2009). Perceptuomotor compatibility effects in speech. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 71(5), 1138–1149.
Galantucci, B., Fowler, C. A., & Turvey, M. T. (2006). The motor theory of speech perception reviewed. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13(3), 361–377.
Gelman, A., & Hill, J. (2007). Data analysis using regression and multilevel/hierarchical models. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Goldinger, S. D. (1998). Echoes of echoes? An episodic theory of lexical access. Psychological Review, 105(2), 251–279.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Liberman, A. M., & Mattingly, I. G. (1985). The motor theory of speech perception revised. Cognition, 21, 1–36.
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.
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.
Ohala, J. J. (1996). Speech perception is hearing sounds, not tongues. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 99(3), 1718–1725.
Roelofs, A. (1997). The WEAVER model of word-form encoding in speech production. Cognition, 64, 249–284.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Author Note
This research was supported by NSF Grant 0951831 to KDR, and by ERC AdG 249440 to AIG.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
ESM 1
(PDF 288 kb)
Rights and permissions
About this article
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
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-014-0666-6