Cited by 32Neurobiology of Language and BilingualismPhonetics and Phonology ResearchReading and Literacy Development

The effect of sublexical and lexical frequency on speech production: an fMRI investigation

Shuster, Linda I.·2009·Brain and Language

Abstract

There is no consensus regarding the fundamental phonetic units that underlie speech production. There is, however, general agreement that the frequency of occurrence of these units is a significant factor. Investigators often use the effects of manipulating frequency to support the importance of particular units. Studies of pseudoword production have been used to show the importance of sublexical units, such as initial syllables, phonemes, and biphones. However, it is not clear that these units play the same role when the production of pseudowords is compared to the production of real words. In this study, participants overtly repeated real and pseudowords that were similar for length, complexity, and initial syllable frequency while undergoing functional magnetic resonance imaging. Compared to real words, production of pseudowords produced greater activation in much of the speech production network, including bilateral inferior frontal cortex, precentral gyri and supplementary motor areas and left superior temporal cortex and anterior insula. Only middle right frontal gyrus showed greater activation for real words than for pseudowords. Compared to a no-speech control condition, production of pseudowords or real words resulted in activation of all of the areas shown to comprise the speech production network. Our data, in conjunction with previous studies, suggest that the unit that is identified as the basic unit of speech production is influenced by the nature of the speech that is being studied, i.e., real words as compared to other real words, pseudowords as compared to other pseudowords, or real words as compared to pseudowords.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.bandl.2009.06.003

Cites

44 of 44 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 45 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Shuster, L. I.
Affiliations
West Virginia University (US)
Corresponding author
Shuster, Linda I.
Venue
Brain and Language
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2009-10
Volume
111
Issue
1
Pages
66-72
ISSN
0093-934X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2157719007
Cited by
32
References
45
Citations by year
2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 4
FWCI
1.75
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Brain and Language (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Phonetics and Phonology Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
Keywords
speech production, word frequency, pseudowords, phonemes, syllables, inferior frontal cortex, supplementary motor area, superior temporal cortex, anterior insula, real words
MeSH terms
Acoustic Stimulation, Adult, Analysis of Variance, Brain Mapping, Cerebral Cortex, Female, Humans, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Reaction Time, Speech, Speech Intelligibility, Speech Production Measurement

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review