Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T15:46:28.688Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The alluring but misleading analogy between mirror neurons and the motor theory of speech

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 April 2014

Lori L. Holt  and
Andrew J. Lotto
Lori L. Holt
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Carnegie Mellon University, and Center for the Neural Basis of Cognition, Pittsburgh, PA 15208. [email protected]://www.psy.cmu.edu/~holtlab
Andrew J. Lotto
Affiliation:
Department of Speech and Hearing Sciences, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721. [email protected]://acns.webhost.uits.arizona.edu/
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Speech is commonly claimed to relate to mirror neurons because of the alluring surface analogy of mirror neurons to the Motor Theory of speech perception, which posits that perception and production draw upon common motor-articulatory representations. We argue that the analogy fails and highlight examples of systems-level developmental approaches that have been more fruitful in revealing perception–production associations.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 37 , Issue 2 , April 2014 , pp. 204 - 205
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Fogassi, L. & Ferrari, P. F. (2007) Mirror neurons and the evolution of embodied language. Current Directions in Psychological Science 16:136–41.Google Scholar
Galantucci, B., Fowler, C. A. & Turvey, M. T. (2006) The motor theory of speech perception reviewed. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 13:361–77.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Guenther, F. H. & Vladusich, T. (2012) A neural theory of speech acquisition and production. Journal of Neurolinguistics 25:408–22.Google Scholar
Hickok, G., Houde, J. & Rong, F. (2011) Sensorimotor integration in speech processing: Computational basis and neural organization. Neuron 69:407–22.Google Scholar
Imada, T., Zhang, Y., Cheour, M., Taulu, S., Ahonen, A. & Kuhl, P. K. (2006) Infant speech perception activates Broca's area: A developmental magnetoencephalography study. NeuroReport 17(10):957–62.Google Scholar
Kluender, K. R., Lotto, A. J. & Holt, L. L. (2005) Contributions of nonhuman animal models to understanding human speech perception. In: Listening to speech: An auditory perspective, ed. Greenberg, S. & Ainsworth, W., pp. 203–20. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Liberman, A. M., Cooper, F. S., Shankweiler, D. P. & Studdert-Kennedy, M. (1967) Perception of the speech code. Psychological Review 74:431–61.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Liberman, A. M. & Mattingly, I. G. (1985) The motor theory of speech perception revised. Cognition 21:1–36.Google Scholar
Lotto, A. J. & Holt, L. L. (2006) Putting phonetic context effects into context: A commentary on fowler (2006) Perception and Psychophysics 68:178–83.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lotto, A. J., Hickok, G. S. & Holt, L. L. (2009) Reflections on mirror neurons and speech perception. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 13(3):110–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Massaro, D. W. & Chen, T. H. (2008) The motor theory of speech perception revisited. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 15:453–57.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Price, C. J., Crinion, J. T. & MacSweeney, M. (2011) A generative model of speech production in Broca's and Werknicke's areas. Frontiers in Psychology 2:237.Google Scholar
Rizzolatti, G. & Arbib, M. A. (1998) Language within our grasp. Trends in Neurosciences 21(5):188–94.Google Scholar
Rizzolatti, G. & Craighero, L. (2004) The mirror-neuron system. Annual Review of Neuroscience 27:169–92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wilson, S. M., Saygin, A. P., Sereno, M. I. & Iacoboni, M. (2004) Listening to speech activates motor areas involved in speech production. Nature Neuroscience 7:701–702.Google Scholar