Berent Iris, Brem Anna-Katharine, Zhao Xu, Seligson Erica, Pan Hong, Epstein Jane, Stern Emily, Galaburda Albert M, Pascual-Leone Alvaro
Department of Psychology, Northeastern University, Boston, MA 02115;
Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 3UD, United Kingdom; Berenson-Allen Center for Noninvasive Brain Stimulation, Beth-Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02215;
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2015 Feb 17;112(7):1983-8. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1416851112. Epub 2015 Feb 2.
All spoken languages express words by sound patterns, and certain patterns (e.g., blog) are systematically preferred to others (e.g., lbog). What principles account for such preferences: does the language system encode abstract rules banning syllables like lbog, or does their dislike reflect the increased motor demands associated with speech production? More generally, we ask whether linguistic knowledge is fully embodied or whether some linguistic principles could potentially be abstract. To address this question, here we gauge the sensitivity of English speakers to the putative universal syllable hierarchy (e.g., blif ≻ bnif ≻ bdif ≻ lbif) while undergoing transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) over the cortical motor representation of the left orbicularis oris muscle. If syllable preferences reflect motor simulation, then worse-formed syllables (e.g., lbif) should (i) elicit more errors; (ii) engage more strongly motor brain areas; and (iii) elicit stronger effects of TMS on these motor regions. In line with the motor account, we found that repetitive TMS pulses impaired participants' global sensitivity to the number of syllables, and functional MRI confirmed that the cortical stimulation site was sensitive to the syllable hierarchy. Contrary to the motor account, however, ill-formed syllables were least likely to engage the lip sensorimotor area and they were least impaired by TMS. Results suggest that speech perception automatically triggers motor action, but this effect is not causally linked to the computation of linguistic structure. We conclude that the language and motor systems are intimately linked, yet distinct. Language is designed to optimize motor action, but its knowledge includes principles that are disembodied and potentially abstract.
所有口语语言都通过声音模式来表达词语,并且某些模式(例如“blog”)比其他模式(例如“lbog”)更受系统偏好。是什么原则导致了这种偏好呢:是语言系统编码了禁止像“lbog”这样的音节的抽象规则,还是人们对它们的不喜欢反映了与言语产生相关的运动需求增加呢?更普遍地说,我们要问语言知识是完全具身化的,还是某些语言原则可能是抽象的。为了解决这个问题,我们在此测量说英语的人在对左侧口轮匝肌进行皮质运动表征的经颅磁刺激(TMS)过程中,对假定的通用音节层次结构(例如,blif ≻ bnif ≻ bdif ≻ lbif)的敏感度。如果音节偏好反映运动模拟,那么发音更差的音节(例如“lbif”)应该:(i)引发更多错误;(ii)更强烈地激活运动脑区;并且(iii)在这些运动区域引发更强的TMS效应。与运动解释一致的是,我们发现重复的TMS脉冲损害了参与者对音节数量的整体敏感度,功能磁共振成像证实皮质刺激部位对音节层次结构敏感。然而,与运动解释相反的是,发音不良的音节最不可能激活唇部感觉运动区域,并且它们受TMS的损害最小。结果表明言语感知会自动触发运动动作,但这种效应与语言结构的计算没有因果联系。我们得出结论,语言和运动系统紧密相连,但又相互区别。语言旨在优化运动动作,但其知识包括一些非具身化且可能是抽象的原则。