Several lines of evidence are consistent with this view First, t

Several lines of evidence are consistent with this view. First, the planum temporale is composed of several cytoarchitectonic fields, the most posterior of which, area Tpt, is outside of auditory cortex proper (Galaburda and Sanides, 1980). This suggests a multifunctional organization with a major division between auditory cortex (anterior sectors) and auditory-related cortices (posterior sectors). Second, Spt is located within this more posterior region of the planum temporale, which is consistent with its proposed functional

role as an interface between auditory and motor systems. Finally, a recent experiment that directly compared sensorimotor and spatial activations within subjects found spatially distinct patterns of activation within the planum temporale (sensorimotor activations were posterior Quisinostat concentration to spatial activations) as well as different patterns of connectivity of the two activation foci as revealed by diffusion tensor imaging (A.L. Isenberg, K.L. Vaden, K. Saberi, L.T. Muftuler, G.H., unpublished data). Thus, it seems that the sensorimotor functions of Spt in the posterior planum temporale region are distinguishable from www.selleckchem.com/products/pci-32765.html the less-well-characterized auditory functions of the more anterior region(s). The foregoing review of the literature points to several conclusions regarding sensorimotor processes in speech. On the output side it is clear that auditory information

plays an important role in feedback control of speech production. On the input side, while the motor speech system is not necessary for speech perception, it is activated during passive listening to speech and may provide a modulatory

influence on perception of speech sounds. Finally, the neural network supporting sensorimotor functions in speech includes premotor cortex, area Spt, STG (auditory cortex), and the cerebellum. We propose a unified view of these observations within the framework of a SFC model of speech production. We suggest that such a circuit also explains, as a consequence of its feedback control of computations, both the activation of motor cortex during perception and the top-down modulatory influence the motor system may have on speech perception. As noted above, feedback control architectures for speech production have been developed previously. Here we propose a model that not only draws on recent developments in SFC theory but also seeks to integrate models of the speech processing derived from psycholinguistic and neurolinguistic research. The model can be viewed as a spelling out of the computations involved in the “dorsal” auditory/speech stream proposed as part of the dual stream model of speech processing (e.g., Figure 3) (Hickok and Poeppel, 2000, Hickok and Poeppel, 2004 and Hickok and Poeppel, 2007; for a similar view, see Rauschecker and Scott, 2009). As briefly discussed above, Figure 1A depicts a SFC architecture presented in the context of motor control for speech production as adapted from Ventura et al. (2009).

Comments are closed.