This paper presents event-related potential (ERP) findings from a study investigating mismatch negativity (MMN) and late discriminative negativity (LDN) response asymmetries in trilingual listeners. The research aimed to explore phonetic representation in multilingual individuals. While theories predicting privative feature specification suggest stronger MMN and (potentially) LDN effects when the standard auditory stimuli have a feature that is specified in the lexical representation, while the deviant lacks it, models like the Perceptual Magnet Model, and the Natural Referent Vowel framework offer competing predictions based on vowel peripherality or prototypicality.
Methodology:
We employed the Oddball paradigm with a ‘flip-flop’ design to compare neural responses evoked by vowel pairs processed by L1 Polish – L2 English – L3/Ln Norwegian listeners.
Data and Analysis:
EEG data were recorded from 22 trilingual participants using 64 active scalp electrodes. Two linear mixed-effects models were fitted, with the amplitude difference (deviant minus standard, in μV) as the dependent variable.
Findings:
The results indicated that language status influenced the (a)symmetry of the MMN and LDN effects, with L3/Ln Norwegian being the only language where asymmetry was observed for both MMN and LDN, while L1 Polish triggered asymmetry for LDN. These findings are partly consistent with the Featurally Underspecified Lexicon model, the Perceptual Magnet Model, and the Natural Referent Vowel framework.
Originality:
The study used the ‘flip-flop’ paradigm to investigate MMN and LDN (a)symmetries in the processing of non-native sounds, focusing specifically on multilingual listeners rather than bilinguals.
AntoniouM.TylerM. D.BestC. T. (2012). Two ways to listen: Do L2-dominant bilinguals perceive stop voicing according to language mode?Journal of Phonetics, 40(4), 582–594. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2012.05.005
2.
BalasA.WrembelM.KaźmierskiK.WeckwerthJ. (2023). Factors determining perceptual and acoustic similarity between native and non-native vowels. In SkarnitzlR.VolínJ. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 20th international congress of phonetic sciences (ICPhS 2023) (pp. 2612–2616). Guarant International.
3.
BarryJ. G.HardimanM. J.BishopD. V. (2009). Mismatch response to polysyllabic nonwords: A neurophysiological signature of language learning capacity. PLOS ONE, 4, Article e6270. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0006270
4.
BatesD. M.MaechlerM.BolkerB. (2012). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes (Version 0.999999-0) [Computer software]. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lme4
5.
BohnO.-S.PolkaL. (2001). Target spectral, dynamic spectral, and duration cues in infant perception of German vowels. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 110, 504–515. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1380415
6.
ChomskyN.HalleM. (1968). The sound pattern of English. Harper & Row.
Di DonaG.ScaltrittiM.SulpizioS. (2022). Formant-invariant voice and pitch representations are pre-attentively formed from constantly varying speech and non-speech stimuli. European Journal of Neuroscience, 56, 4086–4106. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejn.15730
9.
DíazB.MittererH.BroersmaM.EscaraC.Sebastián-GallésN. (2016). Variability in L2 phonemic learning originates from speech-specific capabilities: An MMN study on late bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 19, 955–970. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728915000450
10.
EulitzC.DieschE.PantevC.HampsonS.ElbertT. (1995). Magnetic and electric brain activity evoked by the processing of tone and vowel stimuli. The Journal of Neuroscience, 15, 2748–2755. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.15-04-02748.1995
11.
EulitzC.LahiriA. (2004). Neurobiological evidence for abstract phonological representations in the mental lexicon during speech recognition. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 16, 577–583. https://doi.org/10.1162/089892904323057308
12.
García-SierraA.SchifanoE.DuncanG. M.FishM. S. (2021). An analysis of the perception of stop consonants in bilinguals and monolinguals in different phonetic contexts: A range-based language cueing approach. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 83(4), 1878–1896. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-020-02183-z
13.
GilbertA. C.SorinC.Friedland-YustL.BaumS. R. (2025). English–French bilinguals’ perception of English /h/: Preliminary ERP results [Paper presentation]. New Sounds 2025, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
14.
HarrisJ.LindseyG. (1995). The elements of phonological representation. In DurandJ.KatambaF. (Eds.), Frontiers of phonology: Atoms, structures, derivations (pp. 34–79). Longman.
15.
HawkinsS.MidgleyJ. (2005). Formant frequencies of RP monophthongs in four age groups of speakers. Journal of the International Phonetic Association, 35, 183–199. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0025100305002124
16.
HestvikA.DurvasulaK. (2016). Neurobiological evidence for voicing underspecification in English. Brain and Language, 152, 28–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2015.10.007
17.
HillenbrandJ.GettyL. A.ClarkM. J.WheelerK. (1995). Acoustic characteristics of American English vowels. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 97(5), 3099–3111. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.411872
18.
JakobyH.GoldsteinA.FaustM. (2011). Electrophysiological correlates of speech perception mechanisms and individual differences in second language attainment. Psychophysiology, 48, 1516–1530. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.2011.01227.x
KędzierskaH.RatajK.BalasA.CalZ.CastleC.WrembelM. (2023). Vowel perception in multilingual speakers: ERP evidence from Polish, English and Norwegian. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, Article 1270743. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1270743
21.
KędzierskaH.RatajK.BalasA.WrembelM. (2025). The neurophysiology of phonemic contrasts perception in L2/L3 learners: The role of acquisition setting. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 28(2), 550–652. https://doi.org/10.1017/S136672892400066X
KristoffersenG. (2000). The phonology of Norwegian. Oxford University Press.
24.
KuhlP.WilliamsK.LacerdaF.StevensK.LindblomB. (1992). Linguistic experience alters phonetic perception in infants by 6 months of age. Science, 255, 606–608. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1736364
25.
KujalaA.NäätänenR. (2003). Auditory environment and change detection as indexed by the mismatch negativity (MMN). In PolichJ. (Ed.), Detection of change (pp. 1–22). Springer.
26.
LahiriA.ReetzH. (2002). Underspecified recognition. In GussenhovenC.WarnerN.RietveldT. (Eds.), Labphon 7 (pp. 637–676). Mouton de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197105
27.
LahiriA.ReetzH. (2010). Distinctive features: Phonological underspecification in representation and processing. Journal of Phonetics, 38, 44–59.
LiP.ZhangF.YuA.ZhaoX. (2020). Language history questionnaire (LHQ3): An enhanced 709 tool for assessing multilingual experience. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 23, 938–944.
30.
LiangL.ChenB. (2022). The non-native phonetic perception mechanism utilized by bilinguals with different L2 proficiency levels. International Journal of Bilingualism, 26(3), 368–386. https://doi.org/10.1177/13670069211058275
31.
LuckS. J.GaspelinN. (2017). How to get statistically significant effects in any ERP experiment (and why you shouldn’t). Psychophysiology, 54, 146–157. https://doi.org/10.1111/psyp.12639
32.
MaddiesonI. (2013). “Front rounded vowels”. In DryerS. M.HaspelmathM. (Eds.), The world Atlas of language structures online/WALS online (v2020.3). https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7385533
33.
MolnarM.PolkaL.BaumS.SteinhauerK. (2013). Learning two languages from birth shapes pre-attentive processing of vowel categories: Electrophysiological correlates of vowel discrimination in monolinguals and simultaneous bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 17(3), 526–541. https://doi.org/10.1017/S136672891300062X
34.
NäätänenR.LehtokoskiA.LennesM.CheourM.HoutilainenM.IivonenA.VainioM.AlkuP.IlmoniemiR. J.LuukA.AllikJ.SinkkonenJ.AronenE. (1997). Language-specific phoneme representations revealed by electric and magnetic brain responses. Nature, 385, 432–434. https://doi.org/10.1038/385432a0
35.
NäätänenR.PaavilainenP.RinneT.AlhoK. (2007). The mismatch negativity (MMN) in basic research of central auditory processing: A review. Clinical Neurophysiology, 118, 2544–2590. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinph.2007.04.026
36.
NishiK.StrangeW.Akahane-YamadaR.KubiR.Trent-BrownS. A. (2008). Acoustic and perceptual similarity of Japanese and American English vowels. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 124, 576–588.
PolkaL.BohnO.-S. (2011). Natural Referent Vowel (NRV) framework: An emerging view of early phonetic development. Journal of Phonetics, 39, 467–478. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2010.08.007
40.
PolkaL.BohnO.-S.MolnarM. (2005). Natural referent vowels guide the development of vowel perception. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 117, 2398. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.4785978
41.
PolkaL.WerkerJ. F. (1994). Developmental changes in the perception of non- native vowel contrasts. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 20, 421–435. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.20.2.421
42.
R Core Team. (2023). R: A language and environment for statistical computing (Version 4.3.2) [Computer software]. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/
43.
SongJ.IversonP. (2018). Listening effort during speech perception enhances auditory and lexical processing for non-native listeners and accents. Cognition, 179, 163–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2018.06.001
44.
WigN.García-SierraA. (2021). Matching the mismatch: The interaction between perceptual and conceptual cues in bilinguals’ speech perception. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 24(3), 467–480. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728920000553
45.
WinklerI.KujalaT.TiitinenH.SivonenP.AlkuP.LehtokoskiA.CziglerI.CsépeV.IlmoniemiR. J.NäätänenR. (1999). Brain responses reveal the learning of foreign language phonemes. Psychophysiology, 36, 638–642.
46.
WottawaJ.Adda-DeckerM.IselF. (2022). Neurophysiology of non-native sound discrimination: Evidence from German vowels and consonants in successive French–German bilinguals using an MMN oddball paradigm. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 25(1), 137–147. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728921000468
47.
YuY. H.ShaferV. L. (2021). Neural representation of the English vowel feature [High]: Evidence from /ε/ vs. /ɪ/. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 15, Article 629517. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2021.629517
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
