Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

Türkçede İşitsel Deneylerde Kullanılan Çapraz Birleştirmeli Uyaran Yönteminin Sınanması

Year 2017, Volume: 28 Issue: 1, 29 - 55, 03.07.2017

İpek Pınar Bekar

https://doi.org/10.18492/dad.325482
Cited By: 1

Abstract

Dil sisteminin beyinde zamansal açıdan nasıl işlemlendiğinin açıklanabilmesi için beyin araştırmalarının ve dilbilimin verilerinin birlikte yorumlanması gerekmektedir. İşitsel teknik kullanılarak elde edilen işitsel uyaranların bu bağlamda incelenmesiyle, dilin beyindeki sesbilimsel işlemlenişi daha açık biçimde ortaya konulabilmektedir. Bu araştırmada, Bekâr (2016)'da EEG tekniği aracılığıyla incelenen işitsel uyaranların akustik önişlemleme süreci üzerinde durulmaktadır. Bu önişlemleme süreci araştırmada, Çapraz Birleştirmeli Uyaran (Stimulus Cross-Splicing) yöntemi olarak tanımlanmaktadır. PRAAT 5.2 Ses Çözümleme Programında uygulanan bu yöntem aracılığıyla oluşturulan işitsel uyaranlar, aynı araştırma sorularıyla kurulan ancak akustik önişlemleme sürecinden geçirilmemiş olan bir başka EEG deneyinin işitsel uyaranlarıyla, temel sıklık (F0) ve sesletim süreleri çerçevesinde karşılaştırılmalı yorumlanmaktadır. Temel sıklık (F0) ve sesletim süreleri kullanılarak, ses çaprazlama işleminin gerçekleştirileceği işitsel uyaranların sıfır geçiş noktaları (0-) belirlenmekte ve ses kayıtları doğallığını kaybetmemektedir. Türkçe açısından özgün olan bu yöntem, Türkçenin parçalı ve parçalarüstü sesbilimsel bileşeninin incelendiği beyin araştırmalarında uygulanan işitsel uyaranların daha güvenilir bulgular sunabilmesini sağlamaktadır. İşitsel uyaranların istatistiksel yöntemlerle karşılaştırıldığı bu araştırmanın bulguları, akustik önişlemleme sürecinin Türkçede önemini ortaya koymaktadır. Buna göre, akustik önişlemleme kullanılarak, aynı dilbilimsel sorunu inceleyen iki ayrı beyin görüntüleme çalışmasında bu yöntemin deney sonuçlarına nasıl etki ettiği ve ileri araştırmalardaki gerekliliği vurgulanmaktadır.

Keywords

çapraz birleştirmeli uyaran temel sıklık sesletim süresi işitsel uyaran EEG

References

  • Astésano, C., Besson, M. ve Alter, K. (2004). Brain potentials during semantic and prosodic processing in French. Cognitive Brain Research (18): 172-184.
  • Beckman, M.E. (1996). The parsing of prosody. Language and Cognitive Processes (11): 17-67.
  • Bekâr, İ.P. (2016). Türkçede Eylem-Sonu Konumunda Bürün-Sözdizim Etkileşimi Üzerine Elektrofizyolojik Bir İnceleme. Ankara Üniversitesi. Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü. Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi.
  • Boersma, P. (1993). 'Accurate short-term analysis of the fundamental frequency and the harmonics-to-noise ratio of a sampled sound'. IFA Proceedings 17, 1993. s. 97-110.
  • Boersma, P. ve Weenink, D. (2010). 'PRAAT: doing phonetics by computer (Versiyon 5.2) [bilgisayar programı],' www.praat.org.
  • Bögels, S. (2007). The interplay between prosody and syntax in sentence processing: Two ERP-studies. Nijmegen CNS (2):1.
  • Clark J., Yallop, C. ve Fletcher, J. (2007). Introduction to Phonetics and Phonology. Oxford: Blackwell.
  • Crystal, D. (1969). Prosodic Systems and Intonation in English. Cambridge University Press. 1. Baskı.
  • Crystal, D. (1980). A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics. Wiley Yayınları.
  • Eckstein, C. ve Friederici, A.D. (2005). Late interaction of syntactic and prosodic processes in sentence comprehension as revealed by ERPs. Cognitive Brain Research (25): 130-143.
  • Eckstein, C. ve Friederici, A.D. (2006). Its early: event-related potential evidence for initial interaction of syntax and prosody in speech comprehension. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience (18): 1696-1711.
  • Erguvanlı, E. (1984). The function of word order in Turkish grammar. Berkeley: Kaliforniya Üniversitesi Yayını.
  • Fant, G. (1960). Acoustic Theory of Speech Production. Mounton & Co, The Hague, Hollanda.
  • Friederici, A.D. (2002). Towards a neural basis of auditory sentence processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences (6): 78-84.
  • Göksel, A. (1998). Linearity, focus and the postverbal position in Turkish. İçinde: L. Johanson (Yay.), The Mainz Meeting Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Turkish Linguistics (s. 85-106). Wiesbaden, Harrosowitz, Verlag.
  • Hagoort, P., Brown, C. M., ve Groothusen, J. (1993). The syntactic positive shift (SPS) as an ERP measure of syntactic processing. Language and Cognitive Processes (8): 439-483.
  • Hwang, H. ve Steinhauer, K. (2011). Phrase length matters: the interplay between implicit prosody and syntax in Korean ‘garden path’ sentences. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience (23): 3555-3575.
  • Kent, R.D. ve Read, C. (2002). Acoustic Analysis of Speech. Thomson Learning. İkinci Baskı.
  • Kerkhofs, R., Vonk, W., Schriefers, H. ve Chwılla, D. J. (2007). Discourse, syntax, and prosody: the brain reveals an immediate interaction. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience (19): 1421-1434.
  • Koelsch, S. (2009). Music-syntactic processing and auditory memory: Similarities and differences between ERAN and MMN. Psychophysiology (46): 179-190.
  • Koelsch, S., Gunter, T., Friederici, A.D. ve Schröger, E. (2000). Brain indices of music processing: "nonmusicians" are musical. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 12 (3): 520-41.
  • Koelsch, S., Gunter, T., Wittfoth, M. ve Sammler, D. (2005). Interaction between syntax processing in language and in music: an ERP study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 17 (3): 1565-77.
  • Ladefoged, P. (2006). A Course in Phonetics. Thomson/Wadsworth Yayınları. Beşinci Baskı.
  • Li, W. ve Yang, Y. (2009). Perception of prosodic hierarchical boundaries in Mandarin Chinese sentences. Neuroscience (158): 1416-1425.
  • Magne, C., Astésano, C., Aramaki, M., Ystad, S., Kron-land-martinet, R. ve Besson, M. (2007). Influence of syllabic lengthening on semantic processing in spoken French: Behavioural and electrophysiological evidence. Cerebral Cortex 17(11): 2659-2668.
  • Männel, C. ve Friederici, A.D. (2009). Pauses and Intonational Phrasing: ERP Studies in 5-month-old German Infants and Adults. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 21(10): 1988-2006.
  • Osterhout, L. ve Holcomb, P. (1992). Event-related potentials and syntactic anomaly: Evidence of anomaly detection during the perception of continuous speech. Submitted manuscript
  • Pannekamp, A., Toepel, U., Alter, K., Hahne, A. ve Friederici, A.D. (2005). Prosody-driven sentence processing: an event-related brain potential study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience (17): 407-421.
  • Patel, A.D., Gibson, E., Ratner, J., Besson, M. ve Holcomb, P.J. (1998). Processing syntactic relations in language and music: an event-related potential study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 10 (6): 717-33.
  • Steinberg, J., Truckenbrodt, H. ve Jacobsen, T. (2012). The role of stimulus cross-splicing in an event-related potentials study. Misleading formant transitions hinder automatic phonological processing. Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 131 (4): 3120-3140.
  • Steinhauer, K. ve Friederici, A.D. (2001). Prosodic Boundaries, Comma Rules, and Brain Responses: The Closure Positive Shift in ERPs as a Universal Marker for Prosodic Phrasing in Listeners and Readers. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 30 (3): 267-95.
  • Steinhauer, K., Alter, K. ve Friederici, A.D. (1999). Brain potentials indicate immediate use of prosodic cues in natural speech processing. Nature America (2): 191-196.
  • Stevens, K. (2000). Acoustic Phonetics. The MIT Press. Birinci Baskı.
  • Wolff, S., Schlesewsky, M., Hirotani, M. ve Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I. (2008). The neural mechanisms of word order processing revisited: electrophysiological evidence from Japanese. Brain and Language (107): 133-157.

Examining the Stimulus Cross-Splicing Method on Auditory Experiments in Turkish

Year 2017, Volume: 28 Issue: 1, 29 - 55, 03.07.2017

İpek Pınar Bekar

https://doi.org/10.18492/dad.325482
Cited By: 1

Abstract






To explain how the language system in the brain is temporally processed, the results of both brain and linguistics researches are required to be interpreted together. In this regard, phonologic functioning of language in the brain may be demonstrated more clearly by examining the auditory stimuli which are obtained via using auditory technique. This study focuses on acoustic preprocessing of auditory stimuli by using EEG technique in Bekâr (2016). This preprocessing is described as Stimulus Cross-Splicing method in this study. The auditory stimuli which was prepared in PRAAT 5.2 Sound Analysis Program with this method are interpreted contrastively by means of duration and fundamental frequency (F0) with an auditory stimuli of another EEG experiment, which has the same research questions without an acoustic preprocessing. Zero-crossing (0-) of the auditory stimuli are determined by using fundamental frequency and duration and the recordings keep their naturality. This preliminary method on Turkish provides more reliable results with the use of auditory stimuli that was built on brain studies in which the segmental and suprasegmental phonologic components in Turkish are investigated. Findings of this study reveals the importance of acoustic preprocessing in Turkish by examining the auditory stimuli with statistical methods. According to these findings, the way this method affects the results of the experiment and the necessity of using an acoustic preprocessing in two different brain imaging researches which try to answer the same linguistic issues are emphasized for future studies.

Keywords

cross-splicing fundamental frequency duration auditory stimulus EEG

References

  • Astésano, C., Besson, M. ve Alter, K. (2004). Brain potentials during semantic and prosodic processing in French. Cognitive Brain Research (18): 172-184.
  • Beckman, M.E. (1996). The parsing of prosody. Language and Cognitive Processes (11): 17-67.
  • Bekâr, İ.P. (2016). Türkçede Eylem-Sonu Konumunda Bürün-Sözdizim Etkileşimi Üzerine Elektrofizyolojik Bir İnceleme. Ankara Üniversitesi. Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü. Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi.
  • Boersma, P. (1993). 'Accurate short-term analysis of the fundamental frequency and the harmonics-to-noise ratio of a sampled sound'. IFA Proceedings 17, 1993. s. 97-110.
  • Boersma, P. ve Weenink, D. (2010). 'PRAAT: doing phonetics by computer (Versiyon 5.2) [bilgisayar programı],' www.praat.org.
  • Bögels, S. (2007). The interplay between prosody and syntax in sentence processing: Two ERP-studies. Nijmegen CNS (2):1.
  • Clark J., Yallop, C. ve Fletcher, J. (2007). Introduction to Phonetics and Phonology. Oxford: Blackwell.
  • Crystal, D. (1969). Prosodic Systems and Intonation in English. Cambridge University Press. 1. Baskı.
  • Crystal, D. (1980). A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics. Wiley Yayınları.
  • Eckstein, C. ve Friederici, A.D. (2005). Late interaction of syntactic and prosodic processes in sentence comprehension as revealed by ERPs. Cognitive Brain Research (25): 130-143.
  • Eckstein, C. ve Friederici, A.D. (2006). Its early: event-related potential evidence for initial interaction of syntax and prosody in speech comprehension. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience (18): 1696-1711.
  • Erguvanlı, E. (1984). The function of word order in Turkish grammar. Berkeley: Kaliforniya Üniversitesi Yayını.
  • Fant, G. (1960). Acoustic Theory of Speech Production. Mounton & Co, The Hague, Hollanda.
  • Friederici, A.D. (2002). Towards a neural basis of auditory sentence processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences (6): 78-84.
  • Göksel, A. (1998). Linearity, focus and the postverbal position in Turkish. İçinde: L. Johanson (Yay.), The Mainz Meeting Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Turkish Linguistics (s. 85-106). Wiesbaden, Harrosowitz, Verlag.
  • Hagoort, P., Brown, C. M., ve Groothusen, J. (1993). The syntactic positive shift (SPS) as an ERP measure of syntactic processing. Language and Cognitive Processes (8): 439-483.
  • Hwang, H. ve Steinhauer, K. (2011). Phrase length matters: the interplay between implicit prosody and syntax in Korean ‘garden path’ sentences. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience (23): 3555-3575.
  • Kent, R.D. ve Read, C. (2002). Acoustic Analysis of Speech. Thomson Learning. İkinci Baskı.
  • Kerkhofs, R., Vonk, W., Schriefers, H. ve Chwılla, D. J. (2007). Discourse, syntax, and prosody: the brain reveals an immediate interaction. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience (19): 1421-1434.
  • Koelsch, S. (2009). Music-syntactic processing and auditory memory: Similarities and differences between ERAN and MMN. Psychophysiology (46): 179-190.
  • Koelsch, S., Gunter, T., Friederici, A.D. ve Schröger, E. (2000). Brain indices of music processing: "nonmusicians" are musical. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 12 (3): 520-41.
  • Koelsch, S., Gunter, T., Wittfoth, M. ve Sammler, D. (2005). Interaction between syntax processing in language and in music: an ERP study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 17 (3): 1565-77.
  • Ladefoged, P. (2006). A Course in Phonetics. Thomson/Wadsworth Yayınları. Beşinci Baskı.
  • Li, W. ve Yang, Y. (2009). Perception of prosodic hierarchical boundaries in Mandarin Chinese sentences. Neuroscience (158): 1416-1425.
  • Magne, C., Astésano, C., Aramaki, M., Ystad, S., Kron-land-martinet, R. ve Besson, M. (2007). Influence of syllabic lengthening on semantic processing in spoken French: Behavioural and electrophysiological evidence. Cerebral Cortex 17(11): 2659-2668.
  • Männel, C. ve Friederici, A.D. (2009). Pauses and Intonational Phrasing: ERP Studies in 5-month-old German Infants and Adults. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 21(10): 1988-2006.
  • Osterhout, L. ve Holcomb, P. (1992). Event-related potentials and syntactic anomaly: Evidence of anomaly detection during the perception of continuous speech. Submitted manuscript
  • Pannekamp, A., Toepel, U., Alter, K., Hahne, A. ve Friederici, A.D. (2005). Prosody-driven sentence processing: an event-related brain potential study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience (17): 407-421.
  • Patel, A.D., Gibson, E., Ratner, J., Besson, M. ve Holcomb, P.J. (1998). Processing syntactic relations in language and music: an event-related potential study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 10 (6): 717-33.
  • Steinberg, J., Truckenbrodt, H. ve Jacobsen, T. (2012). The role of stimulus cross-splicing in an event-related potentials study. Misleading formant transitions hinder automatic phonological processing. Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 131 (4): 3120-3140.
  • Steinhauer, K. ve Friederici, A.D. (2001). Prosodic Boundaries, Comma Rules, and Brain Responses: The Closure Positive Shift in ERPs as a Universal Marker for Prosodic Phrasing in Listeners and Readers. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 30 (3): 267-95.
  • Steinhauer, K., Alter, K. ve Friederici, A.D. (1999). Brain potentials indicate immediate use of prosodic cues in natural speech processing. Nature America (2): 191-196.
  • Stevens, K. (2000). Acoustic Phonetics. The MIT Press. Birinci Baskı.
  • Wolff, S., Schlesewsky, M., Hirotani, M. ve Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I. (2008). The neural mechanisms of word order processing revisited: electrophysiological evidence from Japanese. Brain and Language (107): 133-157.
There are 34 citations in total.

Details

Journal Section Research Articles
Authors

İpek Pınar Bekar

Publication Date July 3, 2017
Published in Issue Year 2017Volume: 28 Issue: 1

Cite

APA Bekar, İ. P. (2017). Türkçede İşitsel Deneylerde Kullanılan Çapraz Birleştirmeli Uyaran Yönteminin Sınanması. Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 28(1), 29-55. https://doi.org/10.18492/dad.325482

Cited By

Pupil Dilation Response to Prosody and Syntax During Auditory Sentence Processing
Journal of Psycholinguistic Research
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-021-09830-y

88x31.png

This work is licensed under a

Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 (CC BY-NC-ND) International License.


Journal DOI: 10.18492/dad