Language study offers new twist on mind-​​body connection

New research from North­eastern pro­fessor of psy­chology Iris Berent and her col­leagues indi­cates that lan­guage and motor sys­tems are intri­cately linked—though not in the way that has been widely believed.

Spoken lan­guages express words by sound pat­terns, some of which are pre­ferred to others. For instance, the sound pat­tern “blog” is pre­ferred to “lbog” in Eng­lish as well as many other lan­guages. The researchers wanted to know what accounts for such preferences—specifically, whether they reflect abstract rules of lan­guage in the brain, or if upon hearing speech people attempt to sim­u­late how those sounds are pro­duced by the speech motor system.

Their find­ings sup­port pre­vious research indi­cating the con­nec­tion between people’s knowl­edge of lan­guage and the motor system; how­ever, that con­nec­tion is dif­ferent than what has been pre­vi­ously assumed. The motor system doesn’t drive lin­guistic pref­er­ence directly, they found. Rather, abstract rules of lan­guage guide lin­guistic pref­er­ence, and these abstract rules can trigger motor action. In other words, motor action is a con­se­quence of—not the cause of—linguistic preference.

Sound pat­terns like “blog” are pre­ferred over those like “lbog” not because they are easy to pro­duce; rather, these syl­la­bles are pre­ferred because they con­form to lin­guistic rules, and con­se­quently they tend to acti­vate the motor system, she said.

What’s more, Berent said these find­ings could have impli­ca­tions in studying language-​​related dis­or­ders that are linked to the motor system. One of those areas is dyslexia, which Berent has been studying for years.

This has huge the­o­ret­ical impli­ca­tions,” said Berent, a cog­ni­tive sci­en­tist whose research exam­ines the nature of lin­guistic com­pe­tence. “The idea that lin­guistic knowl­edge is fully embodied in motor action is a hot topic in neu­ro­science right now. Our study shows that motor action is still very impor­tant in lan­guage pro­cessing, but we show a new twist on the mind-​​body connection.”

The research was pub­lished Monday after­noon in the journal Pro­ceed­ings of the National Academy of Sci­ences. Among Berent’s col­lab­o­ra­tors was Alvaro Pascual-​​Leone, an inter­na­tion­ally renowned neu­rol­o­gist at Beth Israel Dea­coness Med­ical Center in Boston and Har­vard Med­ical School and whose exper­tise in tran­scra­nial mag­netic stim­u­la­tion, or TMS, played a key role in the research. Xu Zhao, PhD’15, a doc­toral stu­dent in Northeastern’s Depart­ment of Psy­chology, and other researchers affil­i­ated with the Beth-​​Israel Dea­coness Med­ical Center, Har­vard Med­ical School, Brigham and Women’s Hos­pital, and Uni­ver­sity of Oxford co-​​authored the paper.

Albert Gal­aburda, a co-​​author on the paper and a pre­em­i­nent neu­rol­o­gist at BIDMC, said, “This study helps to solve a long­standing debate in the lit­er­a­ture: What part of speech depends on expe­ri­ence and what part depends on rel­a­tively experience-​​independent gram­mat­ical rules, or some kind of logic system? Since my pri­mary interest is in language-​​based learning dis­or­ders, par­tic­u­larly dyslexia, this ques­tion can be trans­formed to ask whether dyslexics have a pri­mary dis­order of grammar, or a pri­mary dis­order of the motor system or the poor per­cep­tion of speech reaching their ears when babies.”

The researchers’ find­ings are based on a study in which they sought to gauge the sen­si­tivity of English-​​speaking adults to syl­lable struc­ture. Across lan­guages, syl­la­bles like “blif” are more common than “lbif,” and past research from Berent’s lab found that syl­la­bles like “blif” are easier to process, sug­gesting that these syl­la­bles are pre­ferred. The researchers sought to dis­cover the reason for this pref­er­ence: do ill-​​formed syl­la­bles like “lbif” vio­late abstract rules, or do people have dif­fi­culty in their pro­cessing because these syl­la­bles are hard to produce?

To examine this ques­tion, the researchers used TMS, a non­in­va­sive tech­nique that induces focal cor­tical cur­rent via electro-​​magnetic induc­tion to tem­porarily inhibit spe­cific brain regions. The goal was to find out if dis­rupting par­tic­i­pants’ lip motor regions using TMS would elim­i­nate the pref­er­ence for “blif.”

In the exper­i­ment, par­tic­i­pants were pre­sented with an audi­tory stimulus—either a mono­syl­lable or disyl­lable, for example “blif” or “belif”—and asked to indi­cate if that stim­ulus included one or two syl­la­bles. Two hun­dred mil­lisec­onds before hearing that sound, TMS pulses were admin­is­tered to tem­porarily dis­rupt the lip motor region. The crit­ical com­par­ison con­cerned well-​​formed syl­la­bles (e.g., “blif”) vs. ill-​​formed ones (e.g., “lbif”). The researchers asked whether the dis­rup­tion of the motor system would dis­rupt the dis­ad­van­tage of “lbif.” If people dis­like “lbif” because this pat­tern is dif­fi­cult to artic­u­late, then syl­la­bles like “lbif” should be more sus­cep­tible to TMS, and there­fore once people receive the TMS, their dis­like for “lbif” should be lessened.

They found that TMS pulses did impair par­tic­i­pants’ ability to accu­rately deter­mine the number of syl­la­bles. How­ever, the results flew in the face of the embod­i­ment motor hypoth­esis. The researchers found that ill-​​formed syl­la­bles like “lbif” were least likely to be impaired by TMS, and a sub­se­quent func­tional MRI exper­i­ment found that these syl­la­bles were also least likely to engage the lip motor area in the brain.

The results show that speech per­cep­tion auto­mat­i­cally engages the artic­u­la­tory motor system, but lin­guistic pref­er­ences per­sist even when the lan­guage motor system is dis­rupted. These find­ings sug­gest that, despite their inti­mate links, the lan­guage and motor sys­tems are distinct.

Lan­guage is designed to opti­mize motor action, but its knowl­edge con­sists of prin­ci­ples that are dis­em­bodied and poten­tially abstract,” the researchers concluded. The press release came from Northeastern University.

The material in this press release comes from the originating research organization. Content may be edited for style and length. Want more? Sign up for our daily email.