删除或更新信息，请邮件至freekaoyan#163.com(#换成@)

2~4岁普通话儿童前注意阶段的声调感知机制

本站小编 Free考研考试/2022-01-01
杨婉晴, 肖容, 梁丹丹()
南京师范大学文学院, 南京 210097
收稿日期:2019-04-04出版日期:2020-06-25发布日期:2020-04-22
通讯作者:梁丹丹E-mail:ldd233@163.com

基金资助:* 江苏高校优势学科建设工程资助项目(简称PAPD)

Lexical tone perception mechanism in 2- to 4-year-old Mandarin-speaking children in the pre-attention stage

YANG Wanqing, XIAO Rong, LIANG Dandan()
School of Chinese Language and Culture, Nanjing Normal University, Nanjing 210097, China
Received:2019-04-04Online:2020-06-25Published:2020-04-22
Contact:LIANG Dandan E-mail:ldd233@163.com






摘要/Abstract


摘要： 以MMN、p-MMR作为汉语词汇声调感知的神经关联物, 探究2~4岁汉语普通话儿童前注意阶段对声调刺激的失匹配响应, 关注范畴信息和偏差大小两个因素对儿童感知水平的影响。结果显示：在范畴间大偏差条件下(T1/T3), 诱发明显的MMN; 在范畴内或小偏差条件下(T3a/T3、T3b/T3、T2/T3), 都未诱发显著的MMR。表明：2~4岁普通话儿童正处于声调感知能力的发展过程中, 音位信息和声学信息共同影响其声调感知。


表1汉语普通话儿童声调感知神经机制的发展脉络
年龄 T1/T3 T2/T3
新生儿组(出生13天内) p-MMR 无MMRs
6月龄组(6个月15天内) MMN p-MMR
12月龄组(11; 22~12; 14) MMN p-MMR
18月龄组(17; 25~18; 17) MMN p-MMR
24月龄组(24; 1~24; 18) MMN 无MMRs
3岁 未知 未知
4岁组(4; 1~4; 11) MMN 弱p-MMR或无MMRs
5岁组(5; 0~5; 11) MMN p-MMR或无MMRs
6岁组(6; 0~6; 11) MMN p-MMR或无MMRs

表1汉语普通话儿童声调感知神经机制的发展脉络
年龄 T1/T3 T2/T3
新生儿组(出生13天内) p-MMR 无MMRs
6月龄组(6个月15天内) MMN p-MMR
12月龄组(11; 22~12; 14) MMN p-MMR
18月龄组(17; 25~18; 17) MMN p-MMR
24月龄组(24; 1~24; 18) MMN 无MMRs
3岁 未知 未知
4岁组(4; 1~4; 11) MMN 弱p-MMR或无MMRs
5岁组(5; 0~5; 11) MMN p-MMR或无MMRs
6岁组(6; 0~6; 11) MMN p-MMR或无MMRs



图1T1-T3声调感知连续统
图1T1-T3声调感知连续统



图2T2-T3声调感知连续统
图2T2-T3声调感知连续统



图3全部刺激的频谱图
图3全部刺激的频谱图



图4范畴间不同刺激诱发的ERP总平均波形(时间窗：190~250 ms)
图4范畴间不同刺激诱发的ERP总平均波形(时间窗：190~250 ms)


表2范畴间大偏差刺激与标准刺激的平均波幅(μV)和标准差
电极 T1 T3 T1-T3 t(15) p Cohen’s d
F3 -0.65 (2.44) 1.34 (2.12) -1.99 (3.33) -2.39 0.031* -0.87
Fz -1.53 (3.71) 1.87 (2.01) -3.40 (4.08) -3.33 0.005* -1.14
F4 -1.47 (3.63) 1.62 (1.97) -3.09 (4.44) -2.78 0.014* -1.06
C3 -1.53 (3.18) 0.99 (1.69) -2.52 (3.84) -2.622 0.019* -0.99
Cz -2.22 (4.71) 1.17 (1.47) -3.39 (5.82) -2.33 0.034* -0.97
C4 -1.58 (3.73) 1.25 (1.84) -2.83 (4.56) -2.483 0.025* -0.96

表2范畴间大偏差刺激与标准刺激的平均波幅(μV)和标准差
电极 T1 T3 T1-T3 t(15) p Cohen’s d
F3 -0.65 (2.44) 1.34 (2.12) -1.99 (3.33) -2.39 0.031* -0.87
Fz -1.53 (3.71) 1.87 (2.01) -3.40 (4.08) -3.33 0.005* -1.14
F4 -1.47 (3.63) 1.62 (1.97) -3.09 (4.44) -2.78 0.014* -1.06
C3 -1.53 (3.18) 0.99 (1.69) -2.52 (3.84) -2.622 0.019* -0.99
Cz -2.22 (4.71) 1.17 (1.47) -3.39 (5.82) -2.33 0.034* -0.97
C4 -1.58 (3.73) 1.25 (1.84) -2.83 (4.56) -2.483 0.025* -0.96


表3范畴间小偏差刺激与标准刺激的平均波幅(μV)和标准差
电极 T2 T3 T2-T3 t(15) p Cohen’s d
F3 0.81 (4.00) 1.34 (2.12) -0.53 (4.04) -0.53 0.606 -0.16
Fz 1.68 (3.71) 1.86 (2.01) -0.18 (3.56) -0.20 0.844 -0.06
F4 0.59 (3.82) 1.62 (1.97) -1.03 (3.56) -1.12 0.266 -0.34
C3 0.46 (3.54) 0.99 (1.69) -0.53 (3.75) -0.57 0.575 -0.19
Cz 0.76 (3.57) 1.17 (1.47) -0.41 (4.05) -0.41 0.687 -0.15
C4 -0.10 (3.68) 1.25 (1.85) -1.35 (4.49) -1.20 0.248 -0.46

表3范畴间小偏差刺激与标准刺激的平均波幅(μV)和标准差
电极 T2 T3 T2-T3 t(15) p Cohen’s d
F3 0.81 (4.00) 1.34 (2.12) -0.53 (4.04) -0.53 0.606 -0.16
Fz 1.68 (3.71) 1.86 (2.01) -0.18 (3.56) -0.20 0.844 -0.06
F4 0.59 (3.82) 1.62 (1.97) -1.03 (3.56) -1.12 0.266 -0.34
C3 0.46 (3.54) 0.99 (1.69) -0.53 (3.75) -0.57 0.575 -0.19
Cz 0.76 (3.57) 1.17 (1.47) -0.41 (4.05) -0.41 0.687 -0.15
C4 -0.10 (3.68) 1.25 (1.85) -1.35 (4.49) -1.20 0.248 -0.46



图5范畴内不同刺激诱发的ERP总平均波形(时间窗：190~250 ms)
图5范畴内不同刺激诱发的ERP总平均波形(时间窗：190~250 ms)


表4范畴内大偏差刺激与标准刺激的平均波幅(μV)和标准差
电极 T3a T3 T3a-T3 t p Cohen’s d
F3 1.77 (2.88) 1.18 (2.34) 0.59 (2.23) 1.05 0.309 0.22
Fz 1.25 (3.65) 1.03 (1.92) 0.22 (3.23) 0.28 0.786 0.08
F4 1.87 (3.58) 1.13 (2.63) 0.74 (2.92) 1.03 0.322 0.24
C3 0.78 (2.15) 0.66 (1.37) 0.12 (2.39) 0.20 0.844 0.07
Cz 1.01 (2.76) 1.66 (1.91) -0.65 (3.56) -0.73 0.476 -0.27
C4 1.04 (3.19) 0.86 (1.52) 0.18 (3.17) 0.22 0.827 0.07

表4范畴内大偏差刺激与标准刺激的平均波幅(μV)和标准差
电极 T3a T3 T3a-T3 t p Cohen’s d
F3 1.77 (2.88) 1.18 (2.34) 0.59 (2.23) 1.05 0.309 0.22
Fz 1.25 (3.65) 1.03 (1.92) 0.22 (3.23) 0.28 0.786 0.08
F4 1.87 (3.58) 1.13 (2.63) 0.74 (2.92) 1.03 0.322 0.24
C3 0.78 (2.15) 0.66 (1.37) 0.12 (2.39) 0.20 0.844 0.07
Cz 1.01 (2.76) 1.66 (1.91) -0.65 (3.56) -0.73 0.476 -0.27
C4 1.04 (3.19) 0.86 (1.52) 0.18 (3.17) 0.22 0.827 0.07


表5范畴内小偏差刺激与标准刺激的平均波幅(μV)和标准差
电极 T3b T3 T3b-T3 t p Cohen’s d
F3 1.36 (2.25) 1.18 (2.34) 0.18 (1.89) 0.38 0.713 0.08
Fz 1.43 (2.54) 1.03 (1.92) 0.40 (1.64) 0.99 0.339 0.18
F4 1.86 (2.28) 1.13 (2.63) 0.73 (2.05) 1.43 0.173 0.30
C3 1.05 (2.11) 0.66 (1.37) 0.39 (1.59) 0.99 0.340 0.22
Cz 1.68 (3.20) 1.66 (1.91) 0.02 (2.12) 0.04 0.970 0.01
C4 1.09 (1.36) 0.87 (1.52) 0.22 (1.34) 0.67 0.515 0.15

表5范畴内小偏差刺激与标准刺激的平均波幅(μV)和标准差
电极 T3b T3 T3b-T3 t p Cohen’s d
F3 1.36 (2.25) 1.18 (2.34) 0.18 (1.89) 0.38 0.713 0.08
Fz 1.43 (2.54) 1.03 (1.92) 0.40 (1.64) 0.99 0.339 0.18
F4 1.86 (2.28) 1.13 (2.63) 0.73 (2.05) 1.43 0.173 0.30
C3 1.05 (2.11) 0.66 (1.37) 0.39 (1.59) 0.99 0.340 0.22
Cz 1.68 (3.20) 1.66 (1.91) 0.02 (2.12) 0.04 0.970 0.01
C4 1.09 (1.36) 0.87 (1.52) 0.22 (1.34) 0.67 0.515 0.15



图6范畴间大小偏差刺激与标准刺激相减得到的差异波比较(时间窗：268~328 ms)
图6范畴间大小偏差刺激与标准刺激相减得到的差异波比较(时间窗：268~328 ms)


表6范畴间小偏差对所诱发差异波的平均波幅(μV)和标准差
电极 T2-T3 t(15) p Cohen’s d
F3 0.45 (3.38) 0.55 0.59 0.19
Fz 1.32 (3.43) 1.59 0.13 0.54
F4 0.81 (3.27) 1.02 0.32 1.12
C3 0.04 (2.89) 0.05 0.96 0.02
Cz 1.08 (3.95) 1.12 0.28 0.39
C4 0.21 (2.78) 0.31 0.76 0.11

表6范畴间小偏差对所诱发差异波的平均波幅(μV)和标准差
电极 T2-T3 t(15) p Cohen’s d
F3 0.45 (3.38) 0.55 0.59 0.19
Fz 1.32 (3.43) 1.59 0.13 0.54
F4 0.81 (3.27) 1.02 0.32 1.12
C3 0.04 (2.89) 0.05 0.96 0.02
Cz 1.08 (3.95) 1.12 0.28 0.39
C4 0.21 (2.78) 0.31 0.76 0.11



图7范畴内大、小偏差刺激与标准刺激相减得到的差异波比较(时间窗：318~378 ms)
图7范畴内大、小偏差刺激与标准刺激相减得到的差异波比较(时间窗：318~378 ms)


表7范畴内大偏差对所诱发差异波的平均波幅(μV)和标准差
电极 T3a-T3 t p Cohen’s d
F3 1.13 (2.73) 1.65 0.119 0.56
Fz 0.68 (3.15) 0.87 0.398 0.31
F4 0.24 (2.62) 0.37 0.717 0.13
C3 0.34 (2.35) 0.58 0.569 0.20
Cz 0.14 (3.97) 0.14 0.890 0.50
C4 0.13 (2.62) 0.02 0.984 0.07

表7范畴内大偏差对所诱发差异波的平均波幅(μV)和标准差
电极 T3a-T3 t p Cohen’s d
F3 1.13 (2.73) 1.65 0.119 0.56
Fz 0.68 (3.15) 0.87 0.398 0.31
F4 0.24 (2.62) 0.37 0.717 0.13
C3 0.34 (2.35) 0.58 0.569 0.20
Cz 0.14 (3.97) 0.14 0.890 0.50
C4 0.13 (2.62) 0.02 0.984 0.07


表8范畴内小偏差对所诱发差异波的平均波幅(μV)和标准差
电极 T3b-T3 t p Cohen’s d
F3 0.39 (3.07) 0.51 0.617 0.18
Fz 1.26 (3.18) 1.58 0.136 0.56
F4 1.19 (2.57) 1.85 0.084 0.65
C3 0.58 (2.18) 1.06 0.307 0.38
Cz 1.43 (3.21) 1.79 0.094 0.63
C4 0.85 (2.33) 1.46 0.164 0.52

表8范畴内小偏差对所诱发差异波的平均波幅(μV)和标准差
电极 T3b-T3 t p Cohen’s d
F3 0.39 (3.07) 0.51 0.617 0.18
Fz 1.26 (3.18) 1.58 0.136 0.56
F4 1.19 (2.57) 1.85 0.084 0.65
C3 0.58 (2.18) 1.06 0.307 0.38
Cz 1.43 (3.21) 1.79 0.094 0.63
C4 0.85 (2.33) 1.46 0.164 0.52



图8四种类型偏差刺激与标准刺激相减得到的差异波波幅比较(时间窗：190~250 ms)
图8四种类型偏差刺激与标准刺激相减得到的差异波波幅比较(时间窗：190~250 ms)


表9四种条件下差异波的平均振幅与年龄的相关系数
范畴间大偏差 范畴间小偏差 范畴内大偏差 范畴内小偏差
F3 F4 C3 C4 Fz Cz F3 F4 C3 C4 Fz Cz F3 F4 C3 C4 Fz Cz F3 F4 C3 C4 Fz Cz
-0.05 -0.53 -0.25 -0.34 -0.29 -0.47 0.08 0.14 0.14 0.19 0.08 0.15 0.18 0.20 0.17 0.24 0.07 -0.23 0.17 0.22 0.12 0.07 0.16 0.11

表9四种条件下差异波的平均振幅与年龄的相关系数
范畴间大偏差 范畴间小偏差 范畴内大偏差 范畴内小偏差
F3 F4 C3 C4 Fz Cz F3 F4 C3 C4 Fz Cz F3 F4 C3 C4 Fz Cz F3 F4 C3 C4 Fz Cz
-0.05 -0.53 -0.25 -0.34 -0.29 -0.47 0.08 0.14 0.14 0.19 0.08 0.15 0.18 0.20 0.17 0.24 0.07 -0.23 0.17 0.22 0.12 0.07 0.16 0.11


表10四种条件下差异波的潜伏期与年龄的相关系数
范畴间大偏差 范畴间小偏差 范畴内大偏差 范畴内小偏差
F3 F4 C3 C4 Fz Cz F3 F4 C3 C4 Fz Cz F3 F4 C3 C4 Fz Cz F3 F4 C3 C4 Fz Cz
-0.17 0.14 -0.21 -0.06 -0.16 -0.28 -0.19 -0.17 -0.26 -0.36 -0.25 -0.32 -0.32 -0.06 -0.44 -0.43 -0.22 -0.40 -0.14 -0.08 -0.24 0.38 -0.18 -0.16

表10四种条件下差异波的潜伏期与年龄的相关系数
范畴间大偏差 范畴间小偏差 范畴内大偏差 范畴内小偏差
F3 F4 C3 C4 Fz Cz F3 F4 C3 C4 Fz Cz F3 F4 C3 C4 Fz Cz F3 F4 C3 C4 Fz Cz
-0.17 0.14 -0.21 -0.06 -0.16 -0.28 -0.19 -0.17 -0.26 -0.36 -0.25 -0.32 -0.32 -0.06 -0.44 -0.43 -0.22 -0.40 -0.14 -0.08 -0.24 0.38 -0.18 -0.16


表112~4岁儿童在4种条件下的感知机制表现
失匹配响
应成分		 范畴间刺激 范畴内刺激
T1/T3 T2/T3 T3a/T3 T3b/T3
MMN 显著 不显著 不显著 不显著
p-MMR — 不显著 不显著 不显著

表112~4岁儿童在4种条件下的感知机制表现
失匹配响
应成分		 范畴间刺激 范畴内刺激
T1/T3 T2/T3 T3a/T3 T3b/T3
MMN 显著 不显著 不显著 不显著
p-MMR — 不显著 不显著 不显著







[1] Blicher, D. L., Diehl, R. L., & Cohen, L. B . (1990). Effects of syllable duration on the perception of the Mandarin tone 2/tone 3 distinction: Evidence of auditory enhancement. Journal of Phonetics, 18(1), 37-49.
[2] Chandrasekaran, B., Krishnan, A., & Gandour, J. T . (2007). Mismatch negativity to pitch contours is influenced by language experience. Brain Research, 1128, 148-156.
[3] Cheng, Y. Y., & Lee, C. Y . (2018). The development of mismatch responses to Mandarin lexical tone in 12-to 24-month-old infants. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 448-459.
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00448URL
[4] Cheng, Y. Y., Wu, H. C., Tzeng, Y. L., Yang, M. T., Zhao, L. L., & Lee, C. Y . (2013). The development of mismatch responses to Mandarin lexical tones in early infancy. Developmental Neuropsychology, 38(5), 281-300.
doi: 10.1080/87565641.2013.799672URL
[5] He, C., Hotson, L., & Trainor, L. J . (2007). Mismatch responses to pitch changes in early infancy. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 19(5), 878-892.
[6] He, C., Hotson, L., & Trainor, L. J . (2009a). Development of infant mismatch responses to auditory pattern changes between 2 and 4 months old. European Journal of Neuroscience, 29(4), 861-867.
[7] He, C., Hotson, L., & Trainor, L. J . (2009b). Maturation of cortical mismatch responses to occasional pitch change in early infancy: Effects of presentation rate and magnitude of change. Neuropsychologia, 47(1), 218-229.
[8] Hua, Z . (2002). Phonological development in specific contexts: studies of Chinese-speaking children. Child language and development. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 29(1), 12.1-12.5.
[9] Kaan, E., Wayland, R., Bao, M., & Barkley, C. M . (2007). Effects of native language and training on lexical tone perception: An event-related potential study. Brain Research, 1148, 113-122.
[10] Kuo, Y. C., Lee, C. Y., Chen, M. C., Liu, T. L., & Cheng, S. K . (2014). The impact of spectral resolution on the mismatch response to mandarin Chinese tones: An ERP study of cochlear implant simulations. Clinical Neurophysiology, 125(8), 1568-1575.
[11] Kushnerenko, E., Ceponiene, R., Balan, P., Fellman, V., & N??t?nen, R . (2002). Maturation of the auditory change detection response in infants: A longitudinal ERP study. Neuroreport, 13(15), 1843-1848.
[12] Lee, C. Y., Yen, H. L., Yeh, P. W., Lin, W. H., Cheng, Y. Y., Tzeng, Y. L., & Wu, H. C . (2012). Mismatch responses to lexical tone, initial consonant, and vowel in Mandarin- speaking preschoolers. Neuropsychologia, 50(14), 3228-3239.
[13] Ma, W., Zhou, P., Singh, L., & Gao, L . (2017). Spoken word recognition in young tone language learners: Age- dependent effects of segmental and suprasegmental variation. Cognition, 159, 139-155.
[14] Morr, M. L., Shafer, V. L., Kreuzer, J. A., & Kurtzberg, D . (2002). Maturation of mismatch negativity in typically developing infants and preschool children. Ear and Hearing, 23(2), 118-136.
[15] N??t?nen, R., Paavilainen, P., Rinne, T., & Alho, K . (2007). The mismatch negativity (MMN) in basic research of central auditory processing: A review. Clinical Neurophysiology, 118(12), 2544-2590.
[16] Sun, Q . (2016). ERP study on pre-attentive processing of Chinese tones in adults and young children (Unpublished Master's dissertation). Liaoning Normal University.
[ 孙琪 . (2016). 汉语声调加工的ERP研究 (硕士学位论文). 辽宁师范大学. ]
[17] Trainor, L. J., Samuel, S. S., Desjardins, R. N., & Sonnadara, R. R . (2001). Measuring temporal resolution in infants using mismatch negativity. Neuroreport, 12(11), 2443-2448.
[18] Tsao, F. M . (2017). Perceptual improvement of lexical tones in infants: Effects of tone language experience. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 558.
[19] Wang, X. D., Wang, M., & Chen, L . (2013). Hemispheric lateralization for early auditory processing of lexical tones: Dependence on pitch level and pitch contour. Neuropsychologia, 51(11), 2238-2244.
doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2013.07.015URL
[20] Werker, J. F., & Tees, R. C . (1984). Cross-language speech perception: Evidence for perceptual reorganization during the first year of life. Infant Behavior and Development, 7(1), 49-63.
[21] Winkler, I . (2007). Interpreting the mismatch negativity. Journal of Psychophysiology, 21(3-4), 147-163.
[22] Wong, P., Schwartz, R. G., & Jenkins, J. J . (2005). Perception and production of lexical tones by 3-year-old, Mandarin-speaking children. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 48(5), 1065-1079.
[23] Xi, J., Zhang, L., Shu, H., Zhang, Y., & Li, P . (2010). Categorical perception of lexical tones in Chinese revealed by mismatch negativity. Neuroscience, 170(1), 223-231.
[24] Yang, Y. F. (Ed).(2016). Rating scales for children’s developmental behavior and mental health. Beijing, China: People's Medical Publishing House.
[ 杨玉凤 (编). (2016). 儿童发育行为心理评定量表. 北京: 人民卫生出版社.]
[25] Yu, K., Wang, R., Li, L., & Li, P . (2014). Processing of acoustic and phonological information of lexical tones in Mandarin Chinese revealed by mismatch negativity. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8(3), 729.
[26] Yu, K., Zhou, Y., Li, L., Su, J. A., Wang, R., & Li, P . (2017). The interaction between phonological information and pitch type at pre-attentive stage: An ERP study of lexical tones. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 32(9), 1164-1175.
doi: 10.1080/23273798.2017.1310909URL




[1]姚尧, 陈晓湘. 音乐训练对4~5岁幼儿普通话声调范畴感知能力的影响[J]. 心理学报, 2020, 52(4): 456-468.
[2]李嵬,祝华,BarbaraDodd,姜涛,彭聃龄,舒华. 说普通话儿童的语音习得[J]. 心理学报, 2000, 32(2): 170-176.





PDF全文下载地址:

http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlxb/CN/article/downloadArticleFile.do?attachType=PDF&id=4718
相关话题/汉语 神经 未知 偏差 心理

Free考研考试FreeKaoYan.Com
欢迎来到Free考研考试，"为实现人生的Free而奋斗"

© 2020 FreeKaoYan! . All rights reserved.