Weismer Gary
Department of Communication Sciences & Disorders, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI 53706, USA.
Brain Sci. 2023 May 6;13(5):768. doi: 10.3390/brainsci13050768.
This position paper offers a perspective on the long-standing debate concerning the role of oromotor, nonverbal gestures in understanding typical and disordered speech motor control secondary to neurological disease. Oromotor nonverbal tasks are employed routinely in clinical and research settings, but a coherent rationale for their use is needed. The use of oromotor nonverbal performance to diagnose disease or dysarthria type, versus specific aspects of speech production deficits that contribute to loss of speech intelligibility, is argued to be an important part of the debate. Framing these issues are two models of speech motor control, the Integrative Model (IM) and Task-Dependent Model (TDM), which yield contrasting predictions of the relationship between oromotor nonverbal performance and speech motor control. Theoretical and empirical literature on task specificity in limb, hand, and eye motor control is reviewed to demonstrate its relevance to speech motor control. The IM rejects task specificity in speech motor control, whereas the TDM is defined by it. The theoretical claim of the IM proponents that the TDM requires a special, dedicated neural mechanism for speech production is rejected. Based on theoretical and empirical information, the utility of oromotor nonverbal tasks as a window into speech motor control is questionable.
本立场文件就长期以来有关口部运动非言语手势在理解继发于神经系统疾病的典型和紊乱言语运动控制中的作用的争论提出了一种观点。口部运动非言语任务在临床和研究环境中经常被使用,但需要一个连贯的使用理由。有人认为,使用口部运动非言语表现来诊断疾病或构音障碍类型,与导致言语可懂度丧失的言语产生缺陷的特定方面相比,是这场争论的一个重要部分。构成这些问题框架的是两种言语运动控制模型,即整合模型(IM)和任务依赖模型(TDM),它们对口部运动非言语表现与言语运动控制之间的关系产生了截然不同的预测。本文回顾了关于肢体、手部和眼部运动控制中任务特异性的理论和实证文献,以证明其与言语运动控制的相关性。IM拒绝言语运动控制中的任务特异性,而TDM则以此为定义。IM支持者关于TDM需要一种特殊的、专门用于言语产生的神经机制的理论主张被驳回。基于理论和实证信息,口部运动非言语任务作为洞察言语运动控制的窗口的效用值得怀疑。