Speech production has been studied predominantly from within two traditions, psycholinguistics and motor control. These traditions have rarely interacted, and the resulting chasm between these approaches seems to reflect a level of analysis difference: whereas motor control is concerned with lower-level articulatory control, psycholinguistics focuses on higher-level linguistic processing. However, closer examination of both approaches reveals a substantial convergence of ideas. The goal of this article is to integrate psycholinguistic and motor control approaches to speech production. The result of this synthesis is a neuroanatomically grounded, hierarchical state feedback control model of speech production.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Open Access articles citing this article.
Scientific Data Open Access 22 July 2022
Scientific Data Open Access 14 February 2022
Communications Biology Open Access 20 December 2021
Subscribe to Journal
Get full journal access for 1 year
only $8.25 per issue
All prices are NET prices.
VAT will be added later in the checkout.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.
All prices are NET prices.
Dell, G. S. A spreading activation theory of retrieval in language production. Psychol. Rev. 93, 283–321 (1986).
Fromkin, V. The non-anomalous nature of anomalous utterances. Language 47, 27–52 (1971).
Levelt, W. J. Roelofs, A. & Meyer, A. S. A theory of lexical access in speech production. Behav. Brain Sci. 22, 1–75 (1999).
Garrett, M. F. in The Psychology of Learning and Motivation Vol. 9 (ed. Bower, G. H.) 133–177 (Academic Press, New York, 1975).
Guenther, F. H., Hampson, M. & Johnson, D. A theoretical investigation of reference frames for the planning of speech movements. Psychol. Rev. 105, 611–633 (1998).
Houde, J. F. & Jordan, M. I. Sensorimotor adaptation in speech production. Science 279, 1213–1216 (1998).
Fairbanks, G. Systematic research in experimental phonetics. I. A theory of the speech mechanism as a servosystem. J. Speech Hear. Disord. 19, 133–139 (1954).
Kawato, M. Internal models for motor control and trajectory planning. Curr. Opin. Neurobiol. 9, 718–727 (1999).
Shadmehr, R. & Krakauer, J. W. A computational neuroanatomy for motor control. Exp. Brain Res. 185, 359–381 (2008).
Shadmehr, R. & Mussa-Ivaldi, F. A. Adaptive representation of dynamics during learning of a motor task. J. Neurosci. 14, 3208–3224 (1994).
Wolpert, D. M., Ghahramani, Z. & Jordan, M. I. An internal model for sensorimotor integration. Science 269, 1880–1882 (1995).
Tian, X. & Poeppel, D. Mental imagery of speech and movement implicates the dynamics of internal forward models. Front. Psychol. 1, 166 (2010).
Grafton, S. T. The cognitive neuroscience of prehension: recent developments. Exp. Brain Res. 204, 475–491 (2010).
Wolpert, D. M., Doya, K. & Kawato, M. A unifying computational framework for motor control and social interaction. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 358, 593–602 (2003).
Perkell, J. S. et al. Speech motor control: acoustic goals, saturation effects, auditory feedback and internal models. Speech Commun. 22, 227–250 (1997).
Burnett, T. A., Freedland, M. B., Larson, C. R. & Hain, T. C. Voice F0 responses to manipulations in pitch feedback. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 103, 3153–3161 (1998).
Larson, C. R., Burnett, T. A., Bauer, J. J., Kiran, S. & Hain, T. C. Comparison of voice F0 responses to pitch-shift onset and offset conditions. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 110, 2845–2848 (2001).
Tourville, J. A., Reilly, K. J. & Guenther, F. H. Neural mechanisms underlying auditory feedback control of speech. Neuroimage 39, 1429–1443 (2008).
Tremblay, S., Shiller, D. M. & Ostry, D. J. Somatosensory basis of speech production. Nature 423, 866–869 (2003).
Grafton, S. T., Aziz-Zadeh, L. & Ivry, R. B. in The Cognitive Neurosciences Ch. 44 (ed. Gazzaniga, M. S.) 641–652 (MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA, 2009).
Grafton, S. T. & Hamilton, A. F. Evidence for a distributed hierarchy of action representation in the brain. Hum. Mov. Sci. 26, 590–616 (2007).
Diedrichsen, J., Shadmehr, R. & Ivry, R. B. The coordination of movement: optimal feedback control and beyond. Trends Cogn. Sci. 14, 31–39 (2010).
Jackson, J. H. Remarks on evolution and dissolution of the nervous system. J. Ment. Sci. 33, 25–48 (1887).
Gracco, V. L. Some organizational characteristics of speech movement control. J. Speech Hear. Res. 37, 4–27 (1994).
Browman, C. P. & Goldstein, L. Articulatory phonology: an overview. Phonetica 49, 155–180 (1992).
Plaut, D. C. & Kello, C. T. in The Emergence of Language Ch. 14 (ed. MacWhinney, B.) 381–416 (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, New Jersey, USA, 1999).
Bock, K. in The MIT Encyclopedia of the Cognitive Sciences (eds Wilson, R. A. & Keil, F. C.) 453–456 (MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA, 1999).
Dell, G. S. in An Invitation to Cognitive Science: Language Ch. 7 (eds Glietman, L. R. & Liberman, M.) 183–208 (MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA, 1995).
Levelt, W. J. Speaking: From Intention to Articulation (MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA, 1989).
Dell, G. S., Schwartz, M. F., Martin, N., Saffran, E. M. & Gagnon, D. A. Lexical access in aphasic and nonaphasic speakers. Psychol. Rev. 104, 801–838 (1997).
Levelt, W. J. Models of word production. Trends Cogn. Sci. 3, 223–232 (1999).
Vigliocco, G., Antonini, T. & Garrett, M. F. Grammatical gender is on the tip of Italian tongues. Psychol. Sci. 8, 314–317 (1998).
Levelt, W. J. Monitoring and self-repair in speech. Cognition 14, 41–104 (1983).
Nozari, N., Dell, G. S. & Schwartz, M. F. Is comprehension necessary for error detection? A conflict-based account of monitoring in speech production. Cogn. Psychol. 63, 1–33 (2011).
Oppenheim, G. M. & Dell, G. S. Inner speech slips exhibit lexical bias, but not the phonemic similarity effect. Cognition 106, 528–537 (2008).
Postma, A. Detection of errors during speech production: a review of speech monitoring models. Cognition 77, 97–132 (2000).
Huettig, F. & Hartsuiker, R. J. Listening to yourself is like listening to others: external, but not internal, verbal self-monitoring is based on speech perception. Lang. Cognitive Proc. 25, 347–374 (2010).
Nickels, L. & Howard, D. Phonological errors in aphasic naming: comprehension, monitoring and lexicality. Cortex 31, 209–237 (1995).
Ozdemir, R., Roelofs, A. & Levelt, W. J. Perceptual uniqueness point effects in monitoring internal speech. Cognition 105, 457–465 (2007).
Golfinopoulos, E., Tourville, J. A. & Guenther, F. H. The integration of large-scale neural network modeling and functional brain imaging in speech motor control. Neuroimage 52, 862–874 (2010).
Hickok, G., Houde, J. & Rong, F. Sensorimotor integration in speech processing: computational basis and neural organization. Neuron 69, 407–422 (2011).
Houde, J. F. & Nagarajan, S. S. Speech production as state feedback control. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 5, 82 (2011).
Hickok, G., Buchsbaum, B., Humphries, C. & Muftuler, T. Auditory–motor interaction revealed by fMRI: speech, music, and working memory in area Spt. J. Cognitive Neurosci. 15, 673–682 (2003).
Hickok, G., Okada, K. & Serences, J. T. Area Spt in the human planum temporale supports sensory-motor integration for speech processing. J. Neurophysiol. 101, 2725–2732 (2009).
Howard, D. & Nickels, L. Separating input and output phonology: semantic, phonological, and orthographic effects in short-term memory impairment. Cogn. Neuropsychol. 22, 42–77 (2005).
Jacquemot, C., Dupoux, E. & Bachoud-Levi, A. C. Breaking the mirror: asymmetrical disconnection between the phonological input and output codes. Cogn. Neuropsychol. 24, 3–22 (2007).
Shelton, J. R. & Caramazza, A. Deficits in lexical and semantic processing: implications for models of normal language. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 6, 5–27 (1999).
Ventura, M. I., Nagarajan, S. S. & Houde, J. F. Speech target modulates speaking induced suppression in auditory cortex. BMC Neurosci. 10, 58 (2009).
Lichtheim, L. On aphasia. Brain 7, 433–484 (1885).
Wernicke, C. in Wernicke's Works on Aphasia: A Sourcebook and Review (ed. Eggert, G. H.) 91–145 (Mouton, The Hague, The Netherlands, 1874/1977).
Gracco, V. L. & Lofqvist, A. Speech motor coordination and control: evidence from lip, jaw, and laryngeal movements. J. Neurosci. 14, 6585–6597 (1994).
Perkell, J. S. Movement goals and feedback and feedback control mechanisms in speech production. J. Neurolinguist. 26 Mar 2010 (doi:10.1016/j.jneuroling.2010.02.011).
Wilson, S. M., Saygin, A. P., Sereno, M. I. & Iacoboni, M. Listening to speech activates motor areas involved in speech production. Nature Neurosci. 7, 701–702 (2004).
Fadiga, L., Craighero, L., Buccino, G. & Rizzolatti, G. Speech listening specifically modulates the excitability of tongue muscles: a TMS study. Eur. J. Neurosci. 15, 399–402 (2002).
Cooper, W. E. & Lauritsen, M. R. Feature processing in the perception and production of speech. Nature 252, 121–123 (1974).
Delvaux, V. & Soquet, A. The influence of ambient speech on adult speech productions through unintentional imitation. Phonetica 64, 145–173 (2007).
Kappes, J., Baumgaertner, A., Peschke, C. & Ziegler, W. Unintended imitation in nonword repetition. Brain Lang. 111, 140–151 (2009).
Christman, S. S., Boutsen, F. R. & Buckingham, H. W. Perseveration and other repetitive verbal behaviors: functional dissociations. Semin. Speech Lang. 25, 295–307 (2004).
Duffy, J. R. Motor Speech Disorders: Substrates, Differential Diagnosis, and Management (Mosby, St. Louis, Missouri, USA, 1995).
Niemi, M., Laaksonen, J. P., Ojala, S., Aaltonen, O. & Happonen, R. P. Effects of transitory lingual nerve impairment on speech: an acoustic study of sibilant sound /s/. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 35, 920–923 (2006).
Niemi, M., Laaksonen, J. P., Aaltonen, O. & Happonen, R. P. Effects of transitory lingual nerve impairment on speech: an acoustic study of diphthong sounds. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 62, 44–51 (2004).
Niemi, M. et al. Acoustic and neurophysiologic observations related to lingual nerve impairment. Int. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 38, 758–765 (2009).
Perkell, J. S. et al. The distinctness of speakers' /s/-/S/ contrast is related to their auditory discrimination and use of an articulatory saturation effect. J. Speech Lang. Hear. Res. 47, 1259–1269 (2004).
Liberman, A. M. Some results of research on speech perception. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 29, 117–123 (1957).
Indefrey, P. & Levelt, W. J. The spatial and temporal signatures of word production components. Cognition 92, 101–144 (2004).
Rizzolatti, G. et al. Functional organization of inferior area 6 in the macaque monkey. II. Area F5 and the control of distal movements. Exp. Brain Res. 71, 491–507 (1988).
Rizzolatti, G. et al. Neurons related to reaching-grasping arm movements in the rostral part of area 6 (area 6aβ). Exp. Brain Res. 82, 337–350 (1990).
Rizzolatti, G. et al. Neurons related to goal-directed motor acts in inferior area 6 of the macaque monkey. Exp. Brain Res. 67, 220–224 (1987).
Peeva, M. G. et al. Distinct representations of phonemes, syllables, and supra-syllabic sequences in the speech production network. Neuroimage 50, 626–638 (2010).
Aichert, I. & Ziegler, W. Syllable frequency and syllable structure in apraxia of speech. Brain Lang. 88, 148–159 (2004).
Laganaro, M., Croisier, M., Bagou, O. & Assal, F. Progressive apraxia of speech as a window into the study of speech planning processes. Cortex 26 Mar 2011 (doi:10.1016/j.cortex.2011.03.010).
Ogar, J., Slama, H., Dronkers, N., Amici, S. & Gorno-Tempini, M. L. Apraxia of speech: an overview. Neurocase 11, 427–432 (2005).
Hillis, A. E. et al. Re-examining the brain regions crucial for orchestrating speech articulation. Brain 127, 1479–1487 (2004).
Dronkers, N. F. A new brain region for coordinating speech articulation. Nature 384, 159–161 (1996).
Ogar, J. et al. Clinical and anatomical correlates of apraxia of speech. Brain Lang. 97, 343–350 (2006).
Ito, M. Control of mental activities by internal models in the cerebellum. Nature Rev. Neurosci. 9, 304–313 (2008).
Wolpert, D. M., Miall, R. C. & Kawato, M. Internal models in the cerebellum. Trends Cogn. Sci. 9, 338–347 (1998).
Nowak, D. A., Topka, H., Timmann, D., Boecker, H. & Hermsdorfer, J. The role of the cerebellum for predictive control of grasping. Cerebellum 6, 7–17 (2007).
Desmurget, M. & Grafton, S. Forward modeling allows feedback control for fast reaching movements. Trends Cogn. Sci. 4, 423–431 (2000).
Pasalar, S., Roitman, A. V., Durfee, W. K. & Ebner, T. J. Force field effects on cerebellar Purkinje cell discharge with implications for internal models. Nature Neurosci. 9, 1404–1411 (2006).
Shadmehr, R., Smith, M. A. & Krakauer, J. W. Error correction, sensory prediction, and adaptation in motor control. Annu. Rev. Neurosci. 33, 89–108 (2010).
Baldo, J. V., Klostermann, E. C. & Dronkers, N. F. It's either a cook or a baker: patients with conduction aphasia get the gist but lose the trace. Brain Lang. 105, 134–140 (2008).
Buchsbaum, B. R. et al. Conduction aphasia, sensory–motor integration, and phonological short-term memory — an aggregate analysis of lesion and fMRI data. Brain Lang. 119, 119–128 (2011).
Damasio, H. & Damasio, A. R. The anatomical basis of conduction aphasia. Brain 103, 337–350 (1980).
Goodglass, H. in Conduction Aphasia Ch. 3 (ed. Kohn, S. E.) 39–49 (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, New Jersey, USA, 1992).
Ackermann, H., Mathiak, K. & Riecker, A. The contribution of the cerebellum to speech production and speech perception: clinical and functional imaging data. Cerebellum 6, 202–213 (2007).
Ackermann, H., Vogel, M., Petersen, D. & Poremba, M. Speech deficits in ischaemic cerebellar lesions. J. Neurol. 239, 223–227 (1992).
Oppenheim, G. M. & Dell, G. S. Motor movement matters: the flexible abstractness of inner speech. Mem. Cognit. 38, 1147–1160 (2010).
Buchsbaum, B., Hickok, G. & Humphries, C. Role of left posterior superior temporal gyrus in phonological processing for speech perception and production. Cogn. Sci. 25, 663–678 (2001).
Buchsbaum, B. R., Olsen, R. K., Koch, P. & Berman, K. F. Human dorsal and ventral auditory streams subserve rehearsal-based and echoic processes during verbal working memory. Neuron 48, 687–697 (2005).
Murphy, K. et al. Cerebral areas associated with motor control of speech in humans. J. Appl. Physiol. 83, 1438–1447 (1997).
Shuster, L. I. & Lemieux, S. K. An fMRI investigation of covertly and overtly produced mono- and multisyllabic words. Brain Lang. 93, 20–31 (2005).
Smiley, J. F. et al. Multisensory convergence in auditory cortex. I. Cortical connections of the caudal superior temporal plane in macaque monkeys. J. Comp. Neurol. 502, 894–923 (2007).
Schroeder, C. E. et al. Somatosensory input to auditory association cortex in the macaque monkey. J. Neurophysiol. 85, 1322–1327 (2001).
Foxe, J. J. et al. Multisensory auditory-somatosensory interactions in early cortical processing revealed by high-density electrical mapping. Brain Res. Cogn. Brain Res. 10, 77–83 (2000).
Murray, M. M. et al. Grabbing your ear: rapid auditory-somatosensory multisensory interactions in low-level sensory cortices are not constrained by stimulus alignment. Cereb. Cortex 15, 963–974 (2005).
Foxe, J. J. et al. Auditory-somatosensory multisensory processing in auditory association cortex: an fMRI study. J. Neurophysiol. 88, 540–543 (2002).
Lakatos, P., Chen, C. M., O'Connell, M. N., Mills, A. & Schroeder, C. E. Neuronal oscillations and multisensory interaction in primary auditory cortex. Neuron 53, 279–292 (2007).
Aliu, S. O., Houde, J. F. & Nagarajan, S. S. Motor-induced suppression of the auditory cortex. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 21, 791–802 (2009).
Heinks-Maldonado, T. H. et al. Relationship of imprecise corollary discharge in schizophrenia to auditory hallucinations. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry 64, 286–296 (2007).
Frith, C. D., Blakemore, S. & Wolpert, D. M. Explaining the symptoms of schizophrenia: abnormalities in the awareness of action. Brain Res. Brain Res. Rev. 31, 357–363 (2000).
Paus, T., Perry, D. W., Zatorre, R. J., Worsley, K. J. & Evans, A. C. Modulation of cerebral blood flow in the human auditory cortex during speech: role of motor-to-sensory discharges. Eur. J. Neurosci. 8, 2236–2246 (1996).
Christoffels, I. K., van de Ven, V., Waldorp, L. J., Formisano, E. & Schiller, N. O. The sensory consequences of speaking: parametric neural cancellation during speech in auditory cortex. PLoS ONE 6, e18307 (2011).
Eliades, S. J. & Wang, X. Sensory–motor interaction in the primate auditory cortex during self-initiated vocalizations. J. Neurophysiol. 89, 2194–2207 (2003).
Meister, I. G., Wilson, S. M., Deblieck, C., Wu, A. D. & Iacoboni, M. The essential role of premotor cortex in speech perception. Curr. Biol. 17, 1692–1696 (2007).
D'Ausilio, A. et al. The motor somatotopy of speech perception. Curr. Biol. 19, 381–385 (2009).
Callan, D. E., Jones, J. A., Callan, A. M. & Akahane-Yamada, R. Phonetic perceptual identification by native- and second-language speakers differentially activates brain regions involved with acoustic phonetic processing and those involved with articulatory-auditory/orosensory internal models. Neuroimage 22, 1182–1194 (2004).
Wilson, S. M. & Iacoboni, M. Neural responses to non-native phonemes varying in producibility: evidence for the sensorimotor nature of speech perception. Neuroimage 33, 316–325 (2006).
Jazayeri, M. & Movshon, J. A. Optimal representation of sensory information by neural populations. Nature Neurosci. 9, 690–696 (2006).
Jazayeri, M. & Movshon, J. A. A new perceptual illusion reveals mechanisms of sensory decoding. Nature 446, 912–915 (2007).
Regan, D. & Beverley, K. I. Postadaptation orientation discrimination. J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 2, 147–155 (1985).
Scolari, M. & Serences, J. T. Adaptive allocation of attentional gain. J. Neurosci. 29, 11933–11942 (2009).
Vigliocco, G. & Hartsuiker, R. J. The interplay of meaning, sound, and syntax in sentence production. Psychol. Bull. 128, 442–472 (2002).
Friston, K. The free-energy principle: a unified brain theory? Nature Rev. Neurosci. 11, 127–138 (2010).
Summerfield, C. & Egner, T. Expectation (and attention) in visual cognition. Trends Cogn. Sci. 13, 403–409 (2009).
Hickok, G. et al. A functional magnetic resonance imaging study of the role of left posterior superior temporal gyrus in speech production: implications for the explanation of conduction aphasia. Neurosci. Lett. 287, 156–160 (2000).
Anderson, J. M. et al. Conduction aphasia and the arcuate fasciculus: a reexamination of the Wernicke–Geschwind model. Brain Lang. 70, 1–12 (1999).
Dronkers, N. & Baldo, J. in Encyclopedia of Neuroscience (ed. Squire, L. R.) 343–348 (Academic Press, Oxford, 2009).
Hickok, G. in Language and the Brain Ch. 4 (eds Grodzinsky, Y., Shapiro, L. & Swinney, D.) 87–104 (Academic Press, San Diego, California, USA, 2000).
Galantucci, B., Fowler, C. A. & Turvey, M. T. The motor theory of speech perception reviewed. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 13, 361–377 (2006).
Liberman, A. M., Cooper, F. S., Shankweiler, D. P. & Studdert-Kennedy, M. Perception of the speech code. Psychol. Rev. 74, 431–461 (1967).
Hickok, G. The role of mirror neurons in speech perception and action word semantics. Lang. Cognitive Proc. 25, 749–776 (2010).
Lotto, A. J., Hickok, G. S. & Holt, L. L. Reflections on mirror neurons and speech perception. Trends Cogn. Sci. 13, 110–114 (2009).
Massaro, D. W. & Chen, T. H. The motor theory of speech perception revisited. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 15, 453–462 (2008).
Liberman, A. M. & Mattingly, I. G. The motor theory of speech perception revised. Cognition 21, 1–36 (1985).
Stevens, K. N. & Blumstein, S. E. Invariant cues for place of articulation in stop consonants. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 64, 1358–1368 (1978).
Stevens, K. N. & Halle, M. in Models for the Perception of Speech and Visual Form (ed. Walthen-Dunn, W.) 88–102 (MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA, 1967).
Nusbaum, H. C. & Magnuson, J. S. in Talker Variability in Speech Processing Ch. 6 (eds Johnson, K. & Mullennix, J. W.) 109–132 (Academic Press, San Diego, California, USA, 1997).
McClelland, J. L. & Elman, J. L. The TRACE model of speech perception. Cogn. Psychol. 18, 1–86 (1986).
Massaro, D. W. in Handbook of Psycholinguistics Ch. 7 (ed. Gernsbacher, M. A.) 219–263 (Academic Press, San Diego, California, USA, 1994).
Vaden, K. I., Piquado, T. & Hickok, G. Sublexical properties of spoken words modulate activity in Broca's area but not superior temporal cortex: implications for models of speech recognition. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 23, 2665–2674 (2011).
Greenberg, S. in Listening to Speech: An Auditory Perspective Ch. 25 (eds Greenberg, S. & Ainsworth, W. A.) 411–433 (Erlbaum, Mahwah, New Jersey, USA, 2005).
Klatt, D. H. Speech perception: a model of acoustic-phonetic analysis and lexical access. J. Phonetics 7, 279–312 (1979).
Johnson, K. The auditory/perceptual basis for speech segmentation. OSU Work. Pap. Ling. 50, 101–113 (1997).
Johnson, K. Resonance in an exemplar-based lexicon: the emergence of social identity and phonology. J. Phonetics 34, 485–499 (2006).
Goldinger, S. D. Echoes of echoes? An episodic theory of lexical access. Psychol. Rev. 105, 251–279 (1998).
Stevens, K. N. Toward a model for lexical access based on acoustic landmarks and distinctive features. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 111, 1872–1891 (2002).
Marslen-Wilson, W. D. Functional parallelism in spoken word-recognition. Cognition 25, 71–102 (1987).
I would like to thank J. Houde, H. Nusbaum and D. Poeppel for comments on earlier drafts and sections of this paper, and also V. Gracco, who inspired some of the key ideas that are fleshed out here. This work was supported by a grant (DC009659) from the US National Institutes of Health.
The author declares no competing financial interests.
Speech sounds produced by forcing air through a small constriction in the vocal tract, creating turbulent air flow. Examples from English include [v], [f] and [s].
Speech sounds produced by a constriction of the vocal tract, but not enough to cause the turbulent airflow associated with fricatives. Examples from English include [l] and [r].
Morphemes are the smallest units of meaning in a language. They can be 'free' (that is, they can exist as a free-standing unit, as in the word 'cook') or 'bound' (that is, they must be tied to another morpheme, as in 'pre' and 'ed' in the word 'precooked').
Phonemes are the minimal units of speech that distinguish between two words in a language. Thus, the onset sound in 'bit' versus that in 'pit' are different phonemes, as are the final sounds in 'bit' versus 'bid'.
Phonology is the study of the representation and organization of phonemes and phoneme patterns in a language.
- Phrasal level units
Phrasal level units are hierarchically structured clusters of words. For example, the sentence, 'the cat chased the mouse', can be decomposed into at least three phrasal units — 'the cat', 'chased the mouse' and 'the mouse' — that cluster together in a particular hierarchical arrangement.
Psycholinguistics typically refers to the study of how language information is processed in real time during either comprehension or production. By contrast, linguistics typically refers to the study of the principles or representations that characterize all human languages.
A subtype of fricatives in which airflow is directed towards the sharp edges of the teeth, which are held close together. Examples from English include [s] and [z].
About this article
Cite this article
Hickok, G. Computational neuroanatomy of speech production. Nat Rev Neurosci 13, 135–145 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn3158
This article is cited by
Scientific Data (2022)
Scientific Data (2022)
Experimental Brain Research (2022)
The evolution of hierarchical structure building capacity for language and music: a bottom-up perspective