Elsevier

Neuropsychologia

Volume 93, Part B, December 2016, Pages 466-481
Neuropsychologia

Speech processing asymmetry revealed by dichotic listening and functional brain imaging

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2015.12.011Get rights and content

Abstract

In this article, we review research in our laboratory from the last 25 to 30 years on the neuronal basis for laterality of speech perception focusing on the upper, posterior parts of the temporal lobes, and its functional and structural connections to other brain regions. We review both behavioral and brain imaging data, with a focus on dichotic listening experiments, and using a variety of imaging modalities. The data have come in most parts from healthy individuals and from studies on normally functioning brain, although we also review a few selected clinical examples. We first review and discuss the structural model for the explanation of the right-ear advantage (REA) and left hemisphere asymmetry for auditory language processing. A common theme across many studies have been our interest in the interaction between bottom-up, stimulus-driven, and top-down, instruction-driven, aspects of hemispheric asymmetry, and how perceptual factors interact with cognitive factors to shape asymmetry of auditory language information processing. In summary, our research have shown laterality for the initial processing of consonant–vowel syllables, first observed as a behavioral REA when subjects are required to report which syllable of a dichotic syllable-pair they perceive. In subsequent work we have corroborated the REA with brain imaging, and have shown that the REA is modulated through both bottom-up manipulations of stimulus properties, like sound intensity, and top-down manipulations of cognitive properties, like attention focus.

Introduction

In this invited article we review studies on auditory laterality from our laboratories at the University of Bergen, Norway, and Uppsala University, Sweden, which were conducted over the last 25–30 years on auditory laterality. The reviewed studies and articles have in common the use of the dichotic listening paradigm. For most parts, these studies have been conducted in our laboratory at the University of Bergen, Norway, or by our collaborators. We also review, when relevant, other studies in order to emphasize a point, or clarify an issue. We have, moreover, and somewhat untraditionally, divided the paper according to separate studies. We believe that the overall pattern of findings from these studies reveals a coherent story on the laterality of auditory language processing. The review particularly focuses on studies using functional neuroimaging, conceptualized both as hemodynamic imaging (Hugdahl et al., 1999; van den Noort et al., 2008; Westerhausen et al., 2010; Kompus et al., 2012; Westerhausen et al., 2014) as well as electrophysiological and magnetoencephalographic measures (Alho et al., 2012, Davidson and Hugdahl, 1996, Eichele et al., 2005, Passow et al., 2013). These findings are further contrasted with observations in clinical populations (Carlsson et al., 1994; Pollmann et al., 2002, Pollmann et al., 2004; Hugdahl et al., 1997; Kompus et al., 2011). A focus of and core interest in our research on hemispheric asymmetry has been to reveal how bottom-up and top-down factors interact to program conscious perception, whether reflected as behavioral response or as change in brain activity patterns.

Section snippets

Bottom-up and top-down effects on auditory language laterality

With the term “bottom-up” we refer to the brain asymmetry which can be observed as a consequence of the nature of the presented stimulus and the anatomy of the ascending auditory pathways, e.g. how the acoustic–phonetic nature of a consonant–vowel (CV) syllable (like the sound /ba/) presented in isolation, and out of a semantic and syntactic context, will initially drive the neurons in the left peri-Sylvian region, including the Heschl's gyrus (HG), superior temporal gyrus (STG), superior

Outline of the review paper

Fig. 1 illustrates some of the bottom-up and top-down influences on the REA, and we will use sound intensity manipulations as an example of bottom-up, or stimulus-driven, influences, and focused attention instructions as an example of top-down, or instruction-driven, influences. We will then bring it all together by reviewing studies where both types of manipulations have been done within a single experiment, or study.

We have focused on functional neuroimaging studies in this review, and how

The classic REA and the structural model

The classic REA in dichotic listening was originally observed as a behavioral preference when there were two competing stimuli presented at the same time. The discovery of the behavioral REA for auditory perception is typically ascribed to Doreen Kimura who in two articles in the Canadian Journal of Psychology (Kimura, 1961a, Kimura, 1961b) showed superior performance in her subjects for stimulus items presented to the right ear. It should, however, be noted that Kimura in her original studies

Stimulus-driven modulation of the REA

Charles Berlin and colleagues conducted a series of pioneering parameter studies of the REA in the 1960–1970s (see Berlin (1977), for overview of the studies carried out in his laboratory in these years). One of the manipulations he and his colleagues performed was to increase the signal intensity in one ear relative to the other ear, which affected the REA in the sense that increasing the intensity in the right ear increased the REA, while the reversed manipulation decreased the REA. Tallus et

Instruction-driven modulation of the REA

Having addressed issues related to auditory laterality for language processing from a bottom-up perspective and how the REA in dichotic listening is based on the structural model originally proposed by Kimura (1967), and how it is modulated by stimulus-driven factors, like signal intensity, we now turn to a review and discussion of top-down modulatory factors.

The REA can be influenced by a variety of non-stimulus factors, like head- and eye-movements towards either the left or right ear (

The attention-executive model and dichotic listening

Hugdahl et al. (2009) proposed that focusing attention on the right or left ear induced different degrees of cognitive conflict and a corresponding need for cognitive control strategies. When attention was biased to the right side, as in the situation with instructions to focus on the right ear, labeled the forced-right, FR, condition by Hugdahl and Andersson (l986), the bottom-up and top-down influences on the REA would act synergistically to increase the number of correct reports. However,

Summary and conclusions

We have made a couple of intermediate summaries as we have proceeded through this review on the previous pages, and will therefore in this closing section only sum-up the overall take-home-message from studying auditory language laterality with a dichotic listening paradigm, using phonological stimuli, and applying various functional imaging modalities, both hemodynamic and electrophysiological, to evaluate the neuronal and neural underpinnings of the behavioral asymmetries reported from our

Acknowledgments

The authors want to thank all past and present Master and PhD students, as well as Postdocs and national and international research collaborators, as well as the technical staff at the Bergen fMRI Group, and Department of Radiology, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway for their contributions to research reviewed in this article. The current work was funded by grants to Kenneth Hugdahl from the Research Council of Norway, Oslo, Norway Grant # 221558 and European Research Council (ERC),

References (109)

  • T. Eichele et al.

    Asymmetry of evoked potential latency to speech sounds predicts the ear advantage in dichotic listening

    Cogn. Brain Res.

    (2005)
  • L.E. Falkenberg et al.

    Attention and cognitive control networks assessed in a dichotic listening fMRI study

    Brain Cogn.

    (2011)
  • A.L. Foundas et al.

    Verbal dichotic listening in right and left-handed adults: laterality effects of directed attention

    Cortex

    (2006)
  • A.D. Friederici et al.

    Lateralization of auditory language functions: a dynamic dual pathway model

    Brain Lang.

    (2004)
  • M. Gadea et al.

    Increased cortisol and decreased right ear advantage (REA) in dichotic listening following a negative mood induction

    Psychoneuroendocrinology

    (2005)
  • L. Gootjes et al.

    Corpus callosum size correlates with asymmetric performance on a dichotic listening task in healthy aging but not in Alzheimer's disease

    Neuropsychologia

    (2006)
  • M. Hiscock et al.

    The effect of asymmetrically focused attention upon subsequent ear differences in dichotic listening

    Neuropsychologia

    (1984)
  • M. Hiscock et al.

    Attention and the right-ear advantage: what is the connection?

    Brain Cogn.

    (2011)
  • M. Hiscock et al.

    Effects of eye movements on the recognition and localization of dichotic stimuli

    Brain Cogn.

    (1985)
  • K. Hugdahl

    Dichotic listening and language: overview

  • K. Hugdahl et al.

    The effect of stimulus intensity on the right ear advantage in dichotic listening

    Neurosci. Lett.

    (2008)
  • K. Hugdahl et al.

    Brain activation during dichotic presentations of consonant-vowel and musical instruments stimuli: a 15O-PET study

    Neuropsychologia

    (1999)
  • L. Jäncke et al.

    Focused and nonfocused attention in verbal and emotional dichotic listening: an fMRI study

    Brain Lang.

    (2001)
  • L. Jäncke et al.

    Intensity coding of auditory stimuli: an fMRI study

    Neuropsychologia

    (1998)
  • D. Kimura

    Functional asymmetry of the brain in dichotic listening

    Cortex

    (1967)
  • D. Kimura

    From ear to brain

    Brain Cogn.

    (2011)
  • M. Kinsbourne

    The cerebral basis of lateral asymmetries in attention

    Acta Psychol.

    (1970)
  • K. Kompus et al.

    Deficits in inhibitory executive functions in Klinefelter (47, XXY) syndrome

    Psychiatry Res.

    (2011)
  • K. Kompus et al.

    A forced-attention dichotic listening fMRI study on 113 subjects

    Brain Lang.

    (2012)
  • E.M. Løberg et al.

    Hemispheric asymmetry in schizophrenia: a “dual deficits” model

    Biol. Psychiatry

    (1999)
  • D.R. Langers et al.

    fMRI activation in relation to sound intensity and loudness

    Neuroimage

    (2007)
  • T.A. Mondor et al.

    The influence of attention on the dichotic REA

    Neuropsychologia

    (1991)
  • D.N. Pandya et al.

    The topographical distribution of interhemispheric projections in the corpus callosum of the rhesus monkey

    Brain Res.

    (1971)
  • I. Peretz

    The nature of music from a biological perspective

    Cognition

    (2006)
  • J.P. Rauschecker

    Cortical processing of complex sounds

    Curr. Opin. Neurobiol.

    (1998)
  • R. Sparks et al.

    Dichotic listening in man after section of neocortical commissures

    Cortex

    (1968)
  • K. Specht

    Neuronal basis of speech comprehension

    Hear. Res.

    (2014)
  • S.P. Springer et al.

    Dichotic testing of partial and complete split brain subjects

    Neuropsychologia

    (1975)
  • J. Tallus et al.

    Interaural intensity difference and ear advantage in listening to dichotic consonant–vowel syllable pairs

    Brain Res.

    (2007)
  • T. Thomsen et al.

    Dichotic listening reveals functional specificity in prefrontal cortex: an fMRI study

    Neuroimage

    (2004)
  • M. Van den Noort et al.

    A new verbal reports fMRI dichotic listening paradigm for studies of hemispheric asymmetry

    Neuroimage

    (2008)
  • M. Annett

    The bimodal distribution of right, mixed and left handedness

    Q. J. Exp. Psychol.

    (1967)
  • M. Belyk et al.

    Perception of affective and linguistic prosody: an ALE meta-analysis of neuroimaging studies

    Soc. Cogn. Affect. Neurosci.

    (2014)
  • C.I. Berlin

    Hemispheric asymmetry in auditory tasks

  • J.R. Binder et al.

    Human brain language areas identified by functional magnetic resonance imaging

    J. Neurosci.

    (1997)
  • J.J. Bless et al.

    Laterality across languages: results from a global dichotic listening study using a smartphone application

    Laterality

    (2015)
  • A. Brancucci et al.

    Inhibition of auditory cortical responses to ipsilateral stimuli during dichotic listening: evidence from magnetencephalography

    Eur. J. Neurosci.

    (2004)
  • T.S. Braver et al.

    The role of prefrontal cortex in normal and disordered cognitive control: a cognitive neuroscience perspective

  • G.E. Bruder et al.

    Smaller right (left hemisphere) advantage for dichotic fused words in patients with schizophrenia

    Am. J. Psychiatry

    (1995)
  • M.P. Bryden

    An overview of the dichotic listening procedure and its relation to cerebral organization

  • Cited by (64)

    • Effect of cochlear implant side on early speech processing in adults with single-sided deafness

      2022, Clinical Neurophysiology
      Citation Excerpt :

      Speech processing is commonly left lateralized (Bethmann et al., 2007, Floel et al., 2005). Therefore, most people show a right ear advantage for speech processing due to the contralaterality of the auditory pathway (Hugdahl and Westerhausen, 2016). This contralaterality is reflected in a stronger response in the contralateral than in the ipsilateral auditory cortex to monaural stimulation in normal hearing listeners (Behne et al., 2005, Behne et al., 2006, Hine and Debener, 2007, Woldorff et al., 1999).

    • Laterality

      2021, Encyclopedia of Behavioral Neuroscience: Second Edition
    • The role of left vs. right superior temporal gyrus in speech perception: An fMRI-guided TMS study

      2020, Brain and Language
      Citation Excerpt :

      In addition, the decrease in accuracy in the laSTG from TMS was significantly greater than that in the raSTG. Thus, results of the current study converge with those from previous investigations that examined dichotic listening and neuropsychological findings demonstrating a crucial role for the left STG in speech perception (Hugdahl & Westerhausen, 2016; Johsrude, et al., 1997; Kimura 1961; Maffei et al., 2017; Milner et al., 1968; Slevc et al., 2011; Sparks & Geschwind, 1968). Most importantly, the TMS findings supported the conclusion that the activation in the laSTG was causally related to sublexical speech perception whereas such causal evidence was lacking for the raSTG.

    View all citing articles on Scopus

    The research presented in this review article was funded by the Research Council of Norway (RCN), Western Norway Health Authorities (Helse-Vest), University of Bergen, and the European Research Council (ERC).

    View full text