Tessa Phillips

Professor Thurston
April 9, 2024

Motor Theory

The Motor Theory of speech perception suggests that the way speech is produced through
articulatory gestures provides listeners with speech recognition. It claims that the perception of
speech sounds is directly related to individual understanding of articulatory gestures involved in
producing such sounds. Alvin Liberman and others in the 1960s created this particular theory.
Liberman and his team established three main claims upon the creation of Motor Theory. The
first claim is that speech processing is special. The second is that perceiving speech is perceiving
gestures. And the third is the motor system is recruited for perceiving speech.
The first claim, that speech processing is special, refers to the way humans perceive and
understand speech. The way that we understand speech is different from any other auditory
process: the Motor Theory suggests that this specialization arises from the close relationship
between speech perception and production. While auditory processing mechanisms may play a
role in perceiving speech, the theory proposes that the brain's ability to simulate motor gestures
distinguishes speech processing from other forms of auditory processing. Motor Gestures in this
model are involved with producing speech sounds and there are strengths to this claim; however,
there are a variety of weaknesses that critiques have addressed. According to The motor theory of
speech perception reviewed by Bruno Gallantucci, Carol Fowler, and M.T. Turkey explain that
claiming speech processing is “special” causes uncertainty in the context of speech perception.
People question whether this process is unique or if it is similar to other auditory processes due
to such subjectivity of the word “special.” It is argued that speech is just another auditory process
that involves perceiving distal properties such as sound localizations challenging whether speech
processing is unique (Galantucci et al., 2006, p. 6). However, other researchers consider this
claim to be factual because of its involvement with motor system recruitment. Furthermore,
another area of investigation is duplex perception, which was initially thought to be exclusive to
speech. Duplex perception is the concurrent processing of linguistic and non-linguistic content of
auditory stimuli. This finding challenges the idea that duplex perception is uniquely tied to
speech and suggests that similar perceptual mechanisms may operate across various auditory
domains. Consequently, while duplex perception remains a fascinating aspect of speech
processing, its occurrence in non-speech contexts weakens the argument for the unique
specialness of speech perception in the broader landscape of auditory perception (Galantucci et
al., 2006, p. 7). According to Alvin Liberman and Ignatius Mattingly in The motor theory of
speech perception revised, speech production and perception have a unique connection in speech
processing due to the physicality of speech production indicating that what we hear is not only
impacted by sound but also muscular actions (Liberman & Mattingly, 1985, p. 9). Overall, this
claim can be supported or opposed by researchers because of the subjectivity of it.
The second claim, perceiving speech is perceiving gesture, also has a variety of strengths
and weaknesses. The idea maintains that the physical actions of speech production are directly
related to how people perceive speech “for example ‘tongue backing, ’ ‘lip rounding,’ and ‘jaw
raising’- that provide the basis for phonetic categories (Liberman & Mattingly, 1985, p. 2).”
Imitative responses are often very quick which indicates a connection between speech perception
and motor processes. To prove this theory of imitation, a study was conducted by Flower et. al.
participants were presented with spoken phonemes and were asked to imitate such phonemes.
The results indicated that the people were able to imitate much quicker than when participants
were asked to respond with arbitrary responses. An example of this is when the participants were
tasked with producing the model /CV/ syllables which they produced quickly under an imitative
response; however, when producing arbitrary symbols the participant's responses were
significantly slower (Galantucci et al., 2006, p. 9). The evidence of fast imitative responses
proposes that the receiver engages in the activation of articulatory gestures when perceiving
speech sounds. Another piece of evidence tested was the sensitivity to coarticulated gestures
suggesting that listeners are actively parsing the speech signal to perceive and interpret
articulatory gestures. For example, Mann and Repp (1980) found that listeners report different
perceptions of speech sounds along a continuum when the consonant preceding the vowel
exhibits coarticulatory effects. Specifically, listeners reported more occurrences of a particular
speech sound when the consonant preceding it displayed coarticulation with a specific vowel
sound like the finding of more s responses before /u/. This indicates that listeners can separate
the acoustic cues related to coarticulated gestures and use them to infer the intended speech
sounds (Galantucci et al., 2006, p. 9). These findings suggest that receivers are not just recipients
of acoustic cues, but they actively parse the speech signal to interpret the underlying articulatory
gestures. The evidence highlights the idea that perceiving speech is perceiving gestures and its
intricate relationship with motor processes, it also raises questions about alternative explanations
and limitations of existing studies. Future research should investigate the role of gestures in
speech perception.
The third claim indicates that the motor system is recruited to perceive speech. Cooper
provided evidence showing that repeated exposure to specific speech sounds not only affects
perception but also alters production. This suggests a duplex relationship between perception and
production processes in speech. For example, the repetition /pa/ would likely affect the further
production of any /pa/ sounds which suggests a connection between perception and production.
Additionally, Bell-Berti et al. found differences in muscle activity during speech production in
vowel sounds such as /i/, /I/, /e/, and /ε/. The vowels can decrease in “height.” Alternatively, /i/
and /e/ are tense vowels; /I/ and /ε/ are lax. The research found differences in muscle activity for
each of the vowels which correlated with participants' perceptual categorization of these sounds.
These findings provide direct support for the claim that motor processes are involved in speech
perception (Galantucci et al., 2006, pp. 10 -11). Though the evidence aids in supporting a
connection between speech production and perception, the Motor Theory’s claim overlooks the
possible contribution of auditory mechanisms for speech processing. With little direct evidence,
it is difficult to fully support this claim.
In conclusion, I believe the Motor Theory offers insights into the complex relationship
between motor processes and speech perception. By emphasizing the role of motor systems in
understanding speech production and perception, the theory has contributed significantly to the
understanding of speech processing mechanisms. Yet, the theory's focus on motor involvement
may oversimplify the complexity of speech perception as a whole. While the theory's credibility
is supported by evidence demonstrating a production-perception connection, further research
exploring alternative theories is important to provide a more comprehensive understanding of
speech processing. Therefore, I think the Motor Theory has yielded significant contributions to
the knowledge of speech processes, but its restrictions illustrate a need for more research.
 References

Galantucci, B., Fowler, C. A., & Turvey, M. T. (2006). The motor theory of speech perception
reviewed. Psychonomic bulletin & review, 13(3), 361–377.
https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03193857

Liberman, A.M., & Mattingly, I.G. (1985). The motor theory of speech perception revised.
Cognition, 21, 1-36.