This study investigated the effect of the stressed word in Thai language on auditory event-related potential (aERP) in unattended conditions. We presented 30 healthy participants with monosyllabic Thai words consisting of either stressed or unstressed words. We instructed them not to attend to the sound stimuli, but rather to watch and memorize the contents of a silent natural documentary without subtitles. The two listening conditions consisted of 20% deviant stimuli (70 stressed and 70 unstressed words, respectively) and 80% standard stimuli (other 280 unstressed words) presented pseudorandomly and binaurally via a pair of earphones. Participants’ aERPs from the two conditions were evaluated by the mismatch negativity (MMN) component of aERP. The mismatch negativity amplitudes in the stressed word condition were significantly higher than those in the unstressed word condition, especially in frontal and left fronto-central brain areas. Therefore, these data show the role of the frontal and left fronto-central brain regions in auditory preattentive processing of stressed word perception among native Thai speakers. This is the first study demonstration that stressed meaningful monosyllable words in tonal language facilitate word perception in this preattentive stage. This result has implications for developing clinical tests evaluating preattentive speech perception.
ArunphalungsantiK.PichitpornchaiC. (2016) Effects of prosody on spoken Thai word perception in pre-attentive brain processing: A pilot study. Songklanakarin Journal of Science and Technology38(6): 599–603. doi: 10.14456/sjst-psu.2016.76.
2.
AtienzaM.CanteroJ. L.EsceraC. (2001) Auditory information processing during human sleep as revealed by event-related brain potentials. Clin Neurophysiology112(11): 2031–2045.
3.
BelinP.FecteauS.BédardC. (2004) Thinking the voice: Neural correlates of voice perception. Trends in Cognitive Sciences8(3): 129–135. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2004.01.008.
4.
ChandrasekaranB.KrishnanA.GandourJ. T. (2007) Mismatch negativity to pitch contours is influenced by language experience. Brain Research1128(1): 148–156. doi: 10.1016/j.brainres.2006.10.064.
5.
ConnollyJ. F.PhillipsN. A.ForbesK. A. (1995) The effects of phonological and semantic features of sentence-ending words on visual event-related brain potentials. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology94(4): 276–287. doi: 001346949598479R [pii].
6.
DaraC.MonettaL.PellM. D. (2008) Vocal emotion processing in Parkinson’s disease: Reduced sensitivity to negative emotions. Brain Research1188: 100–111. doi: 10.1016/j.brainres.2007.10.034.
7.
DuanmuS. (2004) Tone and non-tone languages: An alternative to language typology and parameters. Language and Linguistics5(4): 891–923.
8.
FriedericiA. D.PfeiferE.HahneA. (1993) Event-related brain potentials during natural speech processing: Effects of semantic, morphological and syntactic violations. Brain Research. Cognitive Brain Research1(3): 183–192. doi: 0926-6410(93)90026-2 [pii].
9.
FryD. B. (1958) Experiments in the perception of stress. Language and Speech1(2): 126–152.
10.
GandourJ. (2000) Frontiers of brain mapping of speech prosody. Brain and Language71(1): 75–77. doi: S0093-934X(99)92217-4 [pii]10.1006/brln.1999.2217.
11.
GandourJ.DzemidzicM.WongD.LoweM.TongY.HsiehL.LuritoJ. (2003) Temporal integration of speech prosody is shaped by language experience: An fMRI study. Brain and Language84(3): 318–336. doi: S0093934X02005059 [pii].
12.
GandourJ.WongD.DzemidzicM.LoweM.TongY.LiX. (2003) A cross-linguistic fMRI study of perception of intonation and emotion in Chinese. Human Brain Mapping18(3): 149–157. doi: 10.1002/hbm.10088.
13.
GuF.ZhangC.HuA.ZhaoG. (2013) Left hemisphere lateralization for lexical and acoustic pitch processing in Cantonese speakers as revealed by mismatch negativity. Neuroimage83: 637–645. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.02.080.
14.
HagoortP. (1993) Impairments of lexical-semantic processing in aphasia: Evidence from the processing of lexical ambiguities. Brain and Language45(2): 189–232. doi: S0093-934X(83)71043-6 [pii]10.1006/brln.1993.1043.
15.
HonbolygóF.CsépeV.RagóA. (2004) Suprasegmental speech cues are automatically processed by the human brain: A mismatch negativity study. Neuroscience Letters363(1): 84–88. doi: 10.1016/j.neulet.2004.03.057.
16.
JemelB.AchenbachC.MüllerB. W.RöpckeB.OadesR. D. (2002) Mismatch negativity results from bilateral asymmetric dipole sources in the frontal and temporal lobes. Brain Topography15(1): 13–27.
17.
KaanE.BarkleyC. M.BaoM.WaylandR. (2008) Thai lexical tone perception in native speakers of Thai, English and Mandarin Chinese: An event-related potentials training study. BMC Neuroscience9: 53. doi: 10.1186/1471-2202-9-53.
18.
KaanE.SwaabT. Y. (2003) Electrophysiological evidence for serial sentence processing: A comparison between non-preferred and ungrammatical continuations. Brain Research. Cognitive Brain Research17(3): 621–635. doi: S0926641003001757 [pii].
19.
KaanE.WaylandR.BaoM.BarkleyC. M. (2007) Effects of native language and training on lexical tone perception: An event-related potential study. Brain Research1148: 113–122. doi: S0006-8993(07)00408-8 [pii]10.1016/j.brainres.2007.02.019.
20.
KujalaT.TervaniemiM.SchrögerE. (2007) The mismatch negativity in cognitive and clinical neuroscience: Theoretical and methodological considerations. Biological Psychology74(1): 1–19. doi: S0301-0511(06)00140-2 [pii]10.1016/j.biopsycho.2006.06.001.
21.
NäätänenR.GaillardA. W.MäntysaloS. (1978) Early selective-attention effect on evoked potential reinterpreted. Acta Psychologica (Amsterdam)42(4): 313–329. doi: 0001-6918(78)90006-9 [pii].
22.
NäätänenR.PakarinenS.RinneT.TakegataR. (2004) The mismatch negativity (MMN): Towards the optimal paradigm. Clinical Neurophysiology115(1): 140–144. doi: S1388245703003687 [pii].
23.
NorrisD.McQueenJ. M.CutlerA.ButterfieldS. (1997) The possible-word constraint in the segmentation of continuous speech. Cognitive Psychology34(3): 191–243. doi: S0010-0285(97)90671-X [pii]10.1006/cogp.1997.0671.
24.
OkamotoH.StrackeH.DraganovaR.PantevC. (2009) Hemispheric asymmetry of auditory evoked fields elicited by spectral versus temporal stimulus change. Cerebral Cortex19(10): 2290–2297. doi: 10.1093/cercor/bhn245.
25.
OsterhoutL.HolcombP. J.SwinneyD. A. (1994) Brain potentials elicited by garden-path sentences: Evidence of the application of verb information during parsing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition20(4): 786–803.
26.
PatelS. H.AzzamP. N. (2005) Characterization of N200 and P300: Selected studies of the event-related potential. International Journal of Medical Sciences2(4): 147–154.
27.
PichitpornchaiC.ArunphalungsantiK. (2016) Effects of spoken Thai word-durations on brain recognition processing: An auditory event-related potential study. Speech Communication85: 1–7. doi: 10.1016/j.specom.2016.10.003.
28.
PillingM. (2009) Auditory event-related potentials (ERPs) in audiovisual speech perception. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research52(4): 1073–1081. doi: 52/4/1073 [pii]10.1044/1092-4388(2009/07-0276).
29.
PolichJ. (1996) Meta-analysis of P300 normative aging studies. Psychophysiology33(4): 334–353.
30.
RinneT.AlhoK.AlkuP.HoliM.SinkkonenJ.VirtanenJ.NäätänenR. (1999) Analysis of speech sounds is left-hemisphere predominant at 100–150ms after sound onset. Neuroreport10(5): 1113–1117.
31.
SabriM.HumphriesC.VerberM.LiebenthalE.BinderJ. R.MangalathuJ.DesaiA. (2014) Neural effects of cognitive control load on auditory selective attention. Neuropsychologia61: 269–279. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2014.06.009.
32.
SchönwiesnerM.RübsamenR.von CramonD. Y. (2005) Hemispheric asymmetry for spectral and temporal processing in the human antero-lateral auditory belt cortex. European Journal of Neuroscience22(6): 1521–1528. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-9568.2005.04315.x.
33.
Sittiprapaporn, W. (2002). Electrophysiological correlates of speech prosody as indexed by the early. Pre-attentive processing (Unpublished doctoral dissertation), Mahidol University, Bangkok.
34.
Steinhauer, K., & Connolly, J. F. (2008). Event-related potentials in the study of language. In B. Stemmer & H. A. Whitaker (Eds.), Handbook of the neuroscience of language (Chapter 9, pp. 91–104). San Diego, CA: Elsevier.
35.
StoodyT. M.SaojiA. A.AtchersonS. R. (2011) Auditory mismatch negativity: Detecting spectral contrasts in a modulated noise. Perceptual Motor Skills113(1): 268–276. doi: 10.2466/22.24.27.pms.113.4.268-276.
36.
SurS.SinhaV. K. (2009) Event-related potential: An overview. Indian Psychiatry Journal18(1): 70–73. doi: 10.4103/0972-6748.57865.
37.
Terken, J. (1991). Fundamental frequency and perceived prominence of accented syllables. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 89(4), 1768–1776. doi: 10.1121/1.401019.
38.
TramoM. J. (2001) Biology and music. Music of the hemispheres. Science291(5501): 54–56.
39.
TsangY. K.JiaS.HuangJ.ChenH. C. (2011) ERP correlates of pre-attentive processing of Cantonese lexical tones: The effects of pitch contour and pitch height. Neuroscience Letters487(3): 268–272. doi: 10.1016/j.neulet.2010.10.035.
40.
WaibelA. (1988) Prosody and speech recognition, London, England: Pitman Publishing.
41.
WhiteL.StuartA. (2011) Mismatch negativity and P300 to behaviorally perceptible and imperceptible frequency and intensity contrasts. Perceptual Motor Skills113(2): 425–430. doi: 10.2466/22.24.27.pms.113.5.425-430.
42.
YipM. (2002) Tone, Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
43.
YlinenS.StrelnikovK.HuotilainenM.NäätänenR. (2009) Effects of prosodic familiarity on the automatic processing of words in the human brain. International Journal of Psychophysiology73(3): 362–368. doi: S0167-8760(09)00143-3 [pii]10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2009.05.013.
44.
ZatorreR. J.BelinP.PenhuneV. B. (2002) Structure and function of auditory cortex: Music and speech. Trends in Cognitive Science6(1): 37–46.
45.
Zora, H. (2011). Effects of the suprasegmental features on the processing of the human brain: Evidence from mismatch negativity (MMN) (Unpublished master’s thesis). Lund University, Sweden.
