Understanding the factors influencing language processing in bilinguals compared with monolinguals is important considering the growing population of Spanish-English bilinguals in the United States. We explored non-native phoneme perception and automaticity of speech processing in American-English monolinguals and Spanish-English bilinguals (Mexican heritage Hispanic) using a neurophysiological signature known as the mismatch negativity (MMN).
Design:
We used non-native speech stimuli to both groups with differing vowel length contrast in an oddball paradigm design.
Data and Analysis:
EEG data were recorded using a research-grade EEG amplifier (V-Amp, Brain Products GmbH) with 16 and 32 active Ag/AgCl scalp electrodes. A four-way ANOVA was used for the analysis. A total of 30 participants were divided into two groups.
Findings:
Our findings reveal a distinct potential advantage among bilingual individuals in discriminating stimuli, evident in the slightly larger amplitude observed in MMN responses compared with their monolingual counterparts.
Originality:
Studies exploring neural activity of bilingual individuals reveal unique patterns of neural connectivity and plasticity, further emphasizing the dynamic nature of the brain.
Significance/Implications:
This nuanced disparity might have critical implications for health care professionals, including audiologists and speech-language pathologists, as it could provide them with novel insights into the impact of bilingualism on routine diagnostic clinical evaluations of speech perception and communication. The intersection of these fields opens up new avenues for enhancing our comprehension of how language is processed in the brain, particularly in individuals with diverse linguistic experiences.
AlhoK.WinklerI.EsceraC.HuotilainenM.VirtanenJ.JaaskelainenI. P.PekkonenE.IlmoniemiR. J. (1998). Processing of novel sounds and frequency changes in the human auditory cortex: Magnetoencephalographic recordings. Psychophysiology, 35(2), 211–224.
2.
Aspé-SánchezM.MengottiP.RumiatiR.Rodríguez-SickertC.EwerJ.BillekeP. (2020). Late frontal negativity discriminates outcomes and intentions in trust-repayment behavior. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 532295. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.532295
3.
BaigorriM.CampanelliL.LevyE. S. (2018). Perception of American-English vowels by early and late Spanish-English bilinguals. Language and Speech, 62(4), 681–700. https://doi.org/10.1177/0023830918806933
4.
BirdsongD. (2014). Dominance and age in bilingualism. Applied Linguistics, 35(4), 374–392.
5.
BohnO.-S.FlegeJ. (1990). Interlingual identification and the role of foreign language experience in L2 vowel perception. Applied Psycholinguistics, 11, 303–328.
6.
BradlowA. R. (1995). A comparative acoustic study of English and Spanish vowels. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 97(3), 1916–1924. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.412064
7.
CrickF.KochC. (1990). Towards a neurobiological theory of consciousness. Seminars in Neuroscience, 2, 263–275.
8.
FlegeJ.AoyamaK.BohnO. (2021). The revised speech learning model (SLM-r) applied. In WaylandR. (Ed.), Second language speech learning: Theoretical and empirical progress (pp. 84–118). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108886901.003
9.
GiguereD.HoffE. (2020). Home language and societal language skills in second-generation bilingual adults. The International Journal of Bilingualism: Cross-disciplinary, Cross-linguistic Studies of Language Behavior, 24(5–6), 1071–1087. https://doi.org/10.1177/1367006920932221
10.
HisagiM.BakerM.AlvaradoE.ShafiroV. (2022). Online assessment of speech perception and auditory spectrotemporal processing in Spanish-English bilinguals. American Journal of Audiology, 31(3S), 936–949. https://doi.org/10.1044/2022_AJA-21-00225
11.
HisagiM.GarridoK.DattaH.ShaferV. L. (2015a). ERP indices of speech processing in Spanish-English bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 18, 271–289. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728914000170
12.
HisagiM.HigbyE.ZandonaM.AcostaA.KentJ.TajimaK. (2024). Impact of speech rate on perception of vowel and consonant duration by bilinguals and monolinguals. JASA Express Letters, 4(5), 055201. https://doi.org/10.1121/10.0025862
13.
HisagiM.HigbyE.ZandonaM.KentJ.CastilloD.DavidovichI.ShaferV. L. (2020). Perceptual discrimination measure of non-native phoneme perception in early- and late- Spanish-English & Japanese-English Bilinguals. Proceedings of Meetings on Acoustics (POMA), 42, 060013. https://doi.org/10.1121/2.0001424
14.
HisagiM.NishiK.StrangeW. (2008). Acoustic properties of Japanese and English vowels: Effects of speaking style and consonantal context. In Endo-HudsonM.JunS.-A.SellsP.ClancyP. M.IwasakiS.SohnS. O. (Eds.), Japanese and Korean linguistics (Proceeding, Vol. 13, pp. 29–40). CSLI.
15.
HisagiM.ShaferV. L.MiyagawaS.KotekH.SugawaraA.PantazisD. (2016). Second-language learning effects on automaticity of speech processing of Japanese phonetic contrasts: An MEG study. Brain Research, 1652, 111–118.
16.
HisagiM.ShaferV. L.StrangeW.SussmanE. (2010). Perception of a Japanese vowel length contrast by Japanese and American English listeners: Behavioral and electrophysiological measures. Brain Research, 1360, 89–105.
17.
HisagiM.ShaferV. L.StrangeW.SussmanE. (2015b). Perception of Japanese consonant length contrasts by Japanese and American English Listeners: Behavioral and electrophysiological measures. Brain Research, 1626, 218–231. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2015.06.001
18.
HorváthJ.RoeberU.BendixenA.SchrögerE. (2008). Specific or general? The nature of attention set changes triggered by distracting auditory events. Brain Research, 1229, 193–203.
19.
HuangY. T.WuC. T.KoikeS.ChaoZ. C. (2024). Dissecting mismatch negativity: Early and late subcomponents for detecting deviants in local and global sequence regularities. eNeuro, 11(5), ENEURO.0050-24.2024. https://doi.org/10.1523/ENEURO.0050-24.2024
20.
KochC. (2004). The quest for consciousness: A neurobiological approach. Roberts & Company, Englewood, CO, pp–429.
21.
KrollJ. F.DussiasP. E. (2017). The benefits of multilingualism to the personal and professional development of residents of the US. Foreign Language Annals, 50(2), 248–259. https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12271
MukadamN.SommerladA.LivingstonG. (2017). The relationship of bilingualism compared to monolingualism to the risk of cognitive decline or dementia: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease, 58(1), 45–54. https://doi.org/10.3233/JAD-170131
24.
NäätänenR. (1990). The role of attention in auditory information processing as revealed by event-related potentials and other brain measures of cognitive functions. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 13, 201–288.
25.
NäätänenR. (2001). The perception of speech sounds by the human brain as reflected by the mismatch negativity (MMN) and its magnetic equivalent (MMNm). Psychophysiology, 38(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0048577201000208
26.
NäätänenR.LehtokoskiA.LennesM.CheourM.HuotilainenM.IivonenA.VainioM.AlkuP.IlmoniemiR. J.LuukA.AllikJ.SinkkonenJ.AlhoK. (1997). Language- specific phoneme representations revealed by electric and magnetic brain responses. Nature, 385, 432–434.
27.
NäätänenR.PaavilainenP.RinneT.AlhoK. (2007). The mismatch negativity (MMN) in basic research of central auditory processing: A review. Clinical Neurophysiology: Official Journal of the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology, 118(12), 2544–2590. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinph.2007.04.026
28.
ShaferV. L.KreshS.ItoK.HisagiM.VidalN.HigbyE.CastilloD.StrangeW. (2021). The neural timecourse of American English vowel discrimination by Japanese, Russian and Spanish second-language learners of English. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 24(4), 642–655. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728921000201
29.
SpechtK.OsnesB.HugdahlK. (2009). Detection of differential speech-specific processes in the temporal lobe using fMRI and a dynamic “sound morphing” technique. Human Brain Mapping, 30, 3436–3444. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.20768
30.
SteinbergJ.TruckenbrodtH.JacobsenT. (2010). Preattentive phonotactic processing as indexed by the mismatch negativity. Journal of cognitive neuroscience, 22(10), 2174–2185. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2009.21408
31.
StrangeW. (2009). Automatic selective perception (ASP) of first and second language speech: A working model. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 125, 2769.
32.
StrangeW. (2011). Automatic selective perception (ASP) of first and second language speech: A working model. Journal of Phonetics, 39(4), 456–466. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2010.09.001
33.
StrangeW.ShaferV. L. (2008). Speech perception in second language learners: The re-education of selective perception. In Hansen EdwardsJ. G.ZampiniM. L. (Eds.), Phonology and second language acquisition (pp. 153–191). John Benjamins.
34.
SussmanE.KujalaT.HalmetojaJ.LyytinenH.AlkuP.NäätänenR. (2004). Automatic and controlled processing of acoustic and phonetic contrasts. Hearing Research, 190(1–2), 128–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-5955(04)00016-4
35.
SzymanskiM. D.YundW. E.WoodsD. L. (1999). Phonemes, intensity and attention: Differential effects on the mismatch negativity (MMN). Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 106(6), 3492–3505.
