Computational neuroanatomy of speech production

By Gregory Hickok. 2012

783 citations recorded by the source corpus.

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.

Subfields: Cognitive Neuroscience, Developmental and Educational Psychology, Social Psychology, Natural Language Processing

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Cognitive Neuroscience

In Developmental and Educational Psychology

In Social Psychology

In Natural Language Processing

Citations in the corpus

Inner Speech: Development, Cognitive Functions, Phenomenology, and Neurobiology (2015, background): “…external speech, there is a large body of psycholinguistic research on the role of inner speech as a potential error monitor for external speech (e.g., Hartsuiker & Kolk, 2001; Nooteboom, 2005), a full discussion of which is beyond the scope of this article (see Hickok, 2012, for a review).”
Converging toward a common speech code: imitative and perceptuo-motor recalibration processes in speech production (2013, positive): “…motor parameters (Guenther, 1995; Perkell et al., 1997; Guenther et al., 1998; Houde and Jordan, 1998; for recent reviews, see Perkell et al., 2000; Guenther, 2006; Hickok et al., 2011; Houde and Nagarajan, 2011; Guenther and Vladusich, 2012; Hickok, 2012; Perkell, 2012; Perrier, 2012).”
Monitoring and Control in Language Production (2017, background): “Hickok (2012) proposed that activation of a lexical item not only activates its motor-phonological representation but d”
The cortical dynamics of speaking: present shortcomings and future avenues (2016, background): “…comprehension (e.g. Friederici, 2012; Hickok & Poeppel, 2007; Kotz & Schwarze, 2010; Rauschecker & Tian, 2000), and in particular its recent adaption to speech production (e.g. Hickok, 2012, 2014a; Pickering & Garrod, 2013) are promising alternative accounts to explore in language production.”
Neurobiology of language (2016, background): “…and sensorimotor integration from auditory (temporal cortex) and somatosensory (inferior parietal cortex) areas (Guenther, Ghosh, & Tourville, 2006; Hickok, 2012; Hickok, Houde, & Rong, 2011; Houde & Nagarajan, 2011; see Blumstein & Baum for discussion of neuroimaging studies supporting this view,…”
Mental imagery of speech: linking motor and perceptual systems through internal simulation and estimation (2012, background): “Such an additional mechanisms which runs in parallel may mediate the early comparison between auditory estimation from an articulatory plan and intended auditory targets during speech production (Hickok, 2012).”
The Effect of Imagination on Stimulation: The Functional Specificity of Efference Copies in Speech Processing (2013, background): “In addition to the auditory cortices, inferior frontal gyrus (IFG), and adjacent premotor cortex also show enhancement, consistent with the hypothesis that an articulation efference copy is generated over these frontal regions (Hickok, 2012; Tian & Poeppel, 2010, 2012; Guenther et al., 2006).”