CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 32Language Development and DisordersNeurobiology of Language and BilingualismPhonetics and Phonology Research

Development of infants’ neural speech processing and its relation to later language skills: A MEG study

Open access
Zhao, T. Christina, Kuhl, Patricia K.·2022·NeuroImage
DOI 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2022.119242

Published version of a preprint

Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The 'sensitive period' for phonetic learning (∼6-12 months) is one of the earliest milestones in language acquisition where infants start to become specialized in processing speech sounds in their native language. In the last decade, advancements in neuroimaging technologies for infants are starting to shed light on the underlying neural mechanisms supporting this important learning period. The current study reports on a large longitudinal dataset with the aim to replicate and extend on two important questions: 1) what are the developmental changes during the 'sensitive period' for native and nonnative speech processing? 2) how does native and nonnative speech processing in infants predict later language outcomes? Fifty-four infants were recruited at 7 months of age and their neural processing of speech was measured using Magnetoencephalography (MEG). Specifically, the neural sensitivity to a native and a nonnative speech contrast was indexed by the mismatch response (MMR). They repeated the measurement again at 11 months of age and their language development was further tracked from 12 months to 30 months of age using the MacArthur-Bates Communicative Development Inventory (CDI). Using an a priori Region-of-Interest (ROI) approach, we observed significant increases for the Native MMR in the left inferior frontal region (IF) and superior temporal region (ST) from 7 to 11 months, but not for the Nonnative MMR. Complementary whole brain comparison revealed more widespread developmental changes for both contrasts. However, only individual differences in the left IF and ST for the Nonnative MMR at 11 months of age were significant predictors of individual vocabulary growth up to 30 months of age. An exploratory machine-learning based analysis further revealed that whole brain time series for both Native and Nonnative contrasts can robustly predict later outcomes, but with very different underlying spatial-temporal patterns. The current study extends our current knowledge and suggests that native and nonnative speech processing may follow different developmental trajectories and utilize different mechanisms that are relevant for later language skills.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2022.119242

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 64 · Cited by 32

Research works printed but not linked: 49

  1. Alho, K., 1995. Ceregral generators of mismatch negativity (MMN) and its magnetic coun- terpart (MMNM) elicited by sound changes. Ear Hear 16 (1), 38-51 .
  2. Best, C.T. (1994). The emergence of language-specific phonemic influences in infant speech perception. In J. Goodman & H. C. Nusbaum (Eds.), The Development of Speech Perception: The Transition from Speech Sounds to Spoken Word .
  3. Best, C.T., Goldstein, L.M., Nam, H., Tyler, M.D., 2016. Articulating what in- fants attune to in native speech. Ecological Psychol. 28 (4), 216-261. doi: 10.1080/10407413.2016.1230372 . · DOI
  4. Bosseler, A.N., Clarke, M., Tavabi, K., Larson, E.D., Hippe, D.S., Taulu, S., Kuhl, P.K., 2021. Using magnetoencephalography to examine word recognition, lateralization, and future language skills in 14-month-old infants. Dev. Cogn. Neurosci. 47, 100901. doi: 10.1016/j.dcn.2020.100901 . · DOI
  5. Cheour, M., Ceponiene, R., Lehtokoski, A., Luuk, A., Allik, J., Alho, K., Naatanen, R., 1998. Development of language-specific phoneme representations in the infant brain. Nat. Neurosci. 1 (5), 351-353. doi: 10.1038/1561 . · DOI
  6. Choi, D., Bruderer, A.G., Werker, J.F., 2019. Sensorimotor influences on speech perception in pre-babbling infants: replication and extension of Bruderer et al. (2015). Psychon. Bull. Rev. 26 (4), 1388-1399. doi: 10.3758/s13423-019-01601-0 . · DOI
  7. Choi, D., Dehaene-Lambertz, G., Peña, M., Werker, J.F., 2021. Neural indicators of articulator-specific sensorimotor influences on infant speech perception. Proceedings of the Nat. Acad. Sci. 118 (20), e2025043118. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2025043118 . · DOI
  8. Conboy, B.T., Kuhl, P.K., 2011. Impact of second-language experience in infancy: brain measures of first-and second-language speech perception. Dev. Sci. 14 (2), 242-248. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-7687.2010.00973.x . · DOI
  9. Csépe, V., 1995. On the origin and development of the mismatch negativity. Ear Hear 16 (1), 91-104 .
  10. Dale, A.M., Fischl, B., Sereno, M.I., 1999. Cortical surface-based analysis: i. segmentation and surface reconstruction. Neuroimage 9 (2), 179-194. doi: 10.1006/nimg.1998.0395 . · DOI · Paper page
  11. Dale, A.M., Liu, A.K., Fischl, B.R., Buckner, R.L., Belliveau, J.W., Lewine, J.D., Halgren, E., 2000. Dynamic statistical parametric mapping: combining fMRI and MEG for high-res- olution imaging of cortical activity. Neuron 26 (1), 55-67 .
  12. Desikan, R.S., Ségonne, F., Fischl, B., Quinn, B.T., Dickerson, B.C., Blacker, D., Kil- liany, R.J., 2006. An automated labeling system for subdividing the human cerebral cortex on MRI scans into gyral based regions of interest. Neuroimage 31 (3), 968-980. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2006.01.021 . · DOI · Paper page
  13. Eilers, R.E., Gavin, W., Wilson, W.R., 1979. Linguistic experience and phonemic perception in infancy: a crosslinguistic study. Child Dev. 50 (1), 14-18. doi: 10.2307/1129035 . · DOI
  14. Fish, M.S., García-Sierra, A., Ramírez-Esparza, N., Kuhl, P.K., 2017. Infant-directed speech in English and Spanish: assessments of monolingual and bilingual caregiver VOT. J. Phon. 63, 19-34. doi: 10.1016/j.wocn.2017.04.003 . · DOI
  15. Gramfort, A., Luessi, M., Larson, E., Engemann, D.A., Strohmeier, D., Brodbeck, C., Haemaelaeinen, M.S., 2014. MNE software for processing MEG and EEG data. Neu- roimage 86, 446-460. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.10.027 . · DOI
  16. Hämäläinen, M.S., Sarvas, J., 1989. Realistic conductivity geometry model of the human head for interpretation of neuromagnetic data. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 36 (2), 165- 171. doi: 10.1109/10.16463 . · DOI · Paper page
  17. Hickok, G., Poeppel, D., 2007. The cortical organization of speech processing. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 8 (5), 393-402 Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nrn2113 . · DOI · Paper page
  18. Hickok, G., Poeppel, D, 2016. Chapter 25 -Neural Basis of Speech Perception. In:
  19. Hickok, G., Small, S.L. (Eds.), Neurobiology of Language. Academic Press, San Diego, pp. 299-310 .
  20. Imada, T., Zhang, Y., Cheour, M., Taulu, S., Ahonen, A., Kuhl, P.K., 2006. Infant speech perception activates Broca's area: a developmental magnetoencephalography study. Neuroreport 17 (10), 957-962. doi: 10.1097/01.wnr.0000223387.51704. · DOI · Paper page
  21. Kuhl, P., 2021. Infant speech perception: integration of multimodal data leads to a new hypothesis-Sensorimotor mechanisms underlie learning. In: Minnesota Symposia on Child Psychology. Whiley, pp. 113-158 . · DOI · Paper page
  22. Kuhl, P.K., 2010. Brain Mechanisms in Early Language Acquisition. Neuron 67 (5), 713- 727. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2010.08.038 . · DOI · Paper page
  23. Kuhl, P.K., Conboy, B.T., Coffey-Corina, S., Padden, D., Rivera-Gaxiola, M., Nelson, T., 2008. Phonetic learning as a pathway to language: new data and native language magnet theory expanded (NLM-e). Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences 363 (1493), 979-1000. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2007.2154 . · DOI · Paper page
  24. Kuhl, P.K., Conboy, B.T., Padden, D., Nelson, T., Pruitt, J., 2005. Early Speech Perception and Later Language Development: implications for the "Critical Period". Language Learning and Development 1 (3-4), 237-264. doi: 10.1080/15475441.2005.9671948 . · DOI · Paper page
  25. Kuhl, P.K., Ramirez, R.R., Bosseler, A., Lin, J.-F.L., Imada, T., 2014. Infants' brain re- sponses to speech suggest Analysis by Synthess. In: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences doi: 10.1073/pnas.1410963111 . · DOI
  26. Kuhl, P.K., Stevens, E., Hayachi, A., Deguchi, T., Kiritani, S., Iverson, P., 2006. Infants show a facilitation effect for native language phonetic perception between 6 and 12 months. Dev. Sci. 9, F13-F21. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-7687.2006.00468.x . · DOI · Paper page
  27. Kuhl, P.K., Williams, K.A., Lacerda, F., Stevens, K.N., Lindblom, B., 1992. Linguistic expe- rience alters phonetic perception in infants by 6 months of age. Science 255 (5044), 606-608 .
  28. Kushnerenko, E., Ceponiene, R., Balan, P., Fellman, V., Huotilainen, M., Naatanen, R., 2002. Maturation of the auditory event-related potentials during the first year of life. NeuroreportNeuroreport 13 (1), 47-51 .
  29. Kushnerenko, E., Van Den Bergh, B., Winkler, I., 2013. Separating acoustic deviance from novelty during the first year of life: a review of event-related potential evidence. Front. Psychol. 4 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00595 . · DOI
  30. Lisker, L., Abramson, A.S., 1964. A cross-language study of voicing in initial stops: acous- tical measurements. Word 20 (3), 384-422 .
  31. Mattock, K., Burnham, D., 2006. Chinese and English infants' tone percep- tion: evidence for perceptual reorganization. Infancy 10 (3), 241-265. doi: 10.1207/s15327078in1003_3 . · DOI
  32. Mattock, K., Molnar, M., Polka, L., Burnham, D., 2008. The developmental course of lexical tone perception in the first year of life. Cognition 106 (3), 1367-1381. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2007.07.002 . · DOI
  33. Molfese, D.L., Molfese, V.J., 1997. Discrimination of language skills at five years of age using event-related potentials recorded at birth. Dev Neuropsychol 13 (2), 135-156. doi: 10.1080/87565649709540674 . · DOI
  34. Naatanen, R., Paavilainen, P., Rinne, T., Alho, K., 2007. The mismatch negativity (MMN) in basic research of central auditory processing: a review. Clinical Neurophysiology 118 (12), 2544-2590 .
  35. O'Reilly, C., Larson, E., Richards, J.E., Elsabbagh, M., 2021. Structural tem- plates for imaging EEG cortical sources in infants. Neuroimage 227, 117682. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2020.117682 . · DOI
  36. Rivera-Gaxiola, M., Klarman, L., Garcia-Sierra, A., Kuhl, P.K., 2005a. Neural patterns to speech and vocabulary growth in American infants. Neuroreport 16 (5), 495-498. doi: 10.1097/00001756-200504040-00015 . · DOI
  37. Rivera-Gaxiola, M., Silva-Pereyra, J., Kuhl, P.K., 2005b. Brain potentials to native and non-native speech contrasts in 7-and 11-month-old American infants. Dev. Sci. 8 (2), 162-172. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-7687.2005.00403.x . · DOI · Paper page
  38. Slabu, L., Grimm, S., Escera, C., 2012. Novelty detection in the human auditory brainstem. The J. Neurosci. 32 (4), 1447-1452 .
  39. Taulu, S., Hari, R., 2009. Removal of magnetoencephalographic artifacts with temporal signal-space separation: demonstration with single-trial auditory-evoked responses. Hum. Brain Mapp. 30 (5), 1524-1534. doi: 10.1002/hbm.20627 . · DOI
  40. Taulu, S., Kajola, M., 2005. Presentation of electromagnetic multichannel data: the signal space separation method. J. Appl. Phys. 97 (12) doi:12490510.1063/1.1935742 . · DOI
  41. Tsao, F.M., Liu, H.M., Kuhl, P.K., 2004. Speech perception in infancy predicts language development in the second year of life: a longitudinal study. Child Dev. 75 (4), 1067- 1084. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2004.00726.x . · DOI · Paper page
  42. Tsao, F.M., Liu, H.M., Kuhl, P.K., 2006. Perception of native and non-native affricate- fricative contrasts: cross-language tests on adults and infants. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 120 (4), 2285-2294. doi: 10.1121/1.2338290 . · DOI · Paper page
  43. Uusitalo, M.A., Ilmoniemi, R.J., 1997. Signal-space projection method for separating MEG or EEG into components. Med. Biological Eng. Comput. 35 (2), 135-140. doi: 10.1007/BF02534144 . · DOI
  44. Werker, J.F., Tees, R.C., 1984b. Phonemic and phonetic factors in adult cross-language speech percetion. J. Acoustical Society of Am. 75 (6), 1866-1878 Retrieved from < Go to ISI>://A1984SW32500025 .
  45. Zhao, T.C., Boorom, O., Kuhl, P.K., Gordon, R., 2021. Infants' neural speech discrim- ination predicts individual differences in grammar ability at 6 years of age and their risk of developing speech-language disorders. Dev. Cogn. Neurosci. 48, 100949. doi: 10.1016/j.dcn.2021.100949 . · DOI · Paper page
  46. Zhao, T.C., Kuhl, P.K., 2016. Musical intervention enhances infants' neural processing of temporal structure in music and speech. Proceedings of the Nat. Acad. Sci. 113 (19), 5212-5217. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1603984113 . · DOI
  47. Zhao, T.C., Masapollo, M., Polka, L., Ménard, L., Kuhl, P.K., 2019. Effects of formant proximity and stimulus prototypicality on the neural discrimination of vowels: ev- idence from the auditory frequency-following response. Brain Lang. 194, 77-83. doi: 10.1016/j.bandl.2019.05.002 . · DOI
  48. Zhao, T.C., Llanos, F., Chandrasekaran, B. & Kuhl, P.K. (Preprint). Linguistic experience during the sensitive period narrows infants' early sensory encoding of speech -Music experience reverses it. OSF Preprint. 2021, DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/y367x · DOI
  49. Zhao, T. C., 2022. Neural-Behavioral Relation in Phonetic Discrimination Modulated by Language Background. Brain Sciences 12 (4), 461 .

Authors
Zhao, T. C., & Kuhl, P. K.
Affiliations
University of Washington (US)
Corresponding author
Zhao, T. Christina
ORCID
Venue
NeuroImage
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2022-08
Volume
256
Pages
119242
ISSN
1053-8119 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.neuroimage.2022.119242
OpenAlex
W4225391041
Cited by
32
References
64
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 5
FWCI
10.28
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • NeuroImage (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (P50HD103524)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Language Development and Disorders
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Phonetics and Phonology Research
Keywords
mismatch response, vocabulary development, left inferior frontal gyrus, superior temporal gyrus
MeSH terms
Child, Preschool, Humans, Infant, Language Development, Phonetics, Speech, Speech Perception, Magnetoencephalography

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