Limits...
Phonetic recalibration does not depend on working memory.

Baart M, Vroomen J - Exp Brain Res (2010)

Bottom Line: Here, we examined phonetic recalibration while listeners were engaged in a visuospatial or verbal memory working memory task under different memory load conditions.Phonetic recalibration was--like selective speech adaptation--not affected by a concurrent verbal or visuospatial memory task.This result indicates that phonetic recalibration is a low-level process not critically depending on processes used in verbal- or visuospatial working memory.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Medical Psychology and Neuropsychology, Tilburg University, Warandelaan 2, P. O. Box 90153, 5000 LE, Tilburg, The Netherlands.

ABSTRACT
Listeners use lipread information to adjust the phonetic boundary between two speech categories (phonetic recalibration, Bertelson et al. 2003). Here, we examined phonetic recalibration while listeners were engaged in a visuospatial or verbal memory working memory task under different memory load conditions. Phonetic recalibration was--like selective speech adaptation--not affected by a concurrent verbal or visuospatial memory task. This result indicates that phonetic recalibration is a low-level process not critically depending on processes used in verbal- or visuospatial working memory.

Show MeSH

Related in: MedlinePlus

Proportion of ‘b’-responses after exposure to A?Vb and A?Vd (upper panels) and AbVb and AdVd (lower panels) for the single and dual tasks. Data are averaged over memory load. Error bars represent one standard error of the mean
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection


getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC2875474&req=5

Fig2: Proportion of ‘b’-responses after exposure to A?Vb and A?Vd (upper panels) and AbVb and AdVd (lower panels) for the single and dual tasks. Data are averaged over memory load. Error bars represent one standard error of the mean

Mentions: The data of the speech identification trials were analyzed as in previous studies by computing aftereffects (Bertelson et al. 2003; Vroomen and Baart 2009a). First, the average number of ‘b’-responses as a function of the test token was calculated for each participant. The group-averaged data are presented in Fig. 2. The data in this figure are averaged across the three memory load groups because preliminary analyses showed that memory load did not affect performance in any rational way (all F’s with load as factor < 1). As is clearly visible, there were more ‘b’-responses for the ‘b-like’ A?-1 token than the more ‘d-like’ A?+1 token. More interestingly, there were more ‘b’-responses after exposure to A?Vb than A?Vd (indicative of recalibration), whereas there were fewer b-responses after exposure to AbVb than AdVd (indicative of selective speech adaptation), thus replicating the basic results for recalibration and selective speech adaptation reported before.Fig. 2


Phonetic recalibration does not depend on working memory.

Baart M, Vroomen J - Exp Brain Res (2010)

Proportion of ‘b’-responses after exposure to A?Vb and A?Vd (upper panels) and AbVb and AdVd (lower panels) for the single and dual tasks. Data are averaged over memory load. Error bars represent one standard error of the mean
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC2875474&req=5

Fig2: Proportion of ‘b’-responses after exposure to A?Vb and A?Vd (upper panels) and AbVb and AdVd (lower panels) for the single and dual tasks. Data are averaged over memory load. Error bars represent one standard error of the mean
Mentions: The data of the speech identification trials were analyzed as in previous studies by computing aftereffects (Bertelson et al. 2003; Vroomen and Baart 2009a). First, the average number of ‘b’-responses as a function of the test token was calculated for each participant. The group-averaged data are presented in Fig. 2. The data in this figure are averaged across the three memory load groups because preliminary analyses showed that memory load did not affect performance in any rational way (all F’s with load as factor < 1). As is clearly visible, there were more ‘b’-responses for the ‘b-like’ A?-1 token than the more ‘d-like’ A?+1 token. More interestingly, there were more ‘b’-responses after exposure to A?Vb than A?Vd (indicative of recalibration), whereas there were fewer b-responses after exposure to AbVb than AdVd (indicative of selective speech adaptation), thus replicating the basic results for recalibration and selective speech adaptation reported before.Fig. 2

Bottom Line: Here, we examined phonetic recalibration while listeners were engaged in a visuospatial or verbal memory working memory task under different memory load conditions.Phonetic recalibration was--like selective speech adaptation--not affected by a concurrent verbal or visuospatial memory task.This result indicates that phonetic recalibration is a low-level process not critically depending on processes used in verbal- or visuospatial working memory.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Medical Psychology and Neuropsychology, Tilburg University, Warandelaan 2, P. O. Box 90153, 5000 LE, Tilburg, The Netherlands.

ABSTRACT
Listeners use lipread information to adjust the phonetic boundary between two speech categories (phonetic recalibration, Bertelson et al. 2003). Here, we examined phonetic recalibration while listeners were engaged in a visuospatial or verbal memory working memory task under different memory load conditions. Phonetic recalibration was--like selective speech adaptation--not affected by a concurrent verbal or visuospatial memory task. This result indicates that phonetic recalibration is a low-level process not critically depending on processes used in verbal- or visuospatial working memory.

Show MeSH
Related in: MedlinePlus