Literature DB >> 10672466

Instructing subjects to make a voluntary response reveals the presence of two components to the audio-vocal reflex.

T C Hain1, T A Burnett, S Kiran, C R Larson, S Singh, M K Kenney.   

Abstract

Previous findings have shown that subjects respond to an alteration, or shift, of auditory feedback pitch with a change in voice fundamental frequency (F0). When pitch shifts exceeding 500 ms in duration were presented, subjects' averaged responses appeared to consist of both an early and a late component. The latency of the second response was long enough to be produced voluntarily. To test the hypothesis that there are two responses to pitch-shift stimuli and to clarify the role of intention, subjects were instructed to change their voice F0 in the opposite direction of the pitch-shift stimulus, in the same direction, or not to respond at all. In a second group, subjects were tested under the above conditions as well as under instructions to raise voice F0 or to lower F0 as rapidly as possible upon hearing a pitch shift. Results showed that, when given instructions to produce a voluntary response, subjects made both an early vocal response (VR1) and a later vocal response (VR2). The second response, VR2, was almost always made in the instructed direction, whereas VR1 was often made incorrectly. The latency of VR1 was reduced under instructions to respond to feedback pitch shifts by changing voice F0 in the opposite direction, compared with that when told to ignore the pitch shifts. Latency and amplitude measures of VR2 differed under the various experimental conditions. These results demonstrate that there are two responses to pitch-shift stimuli. The first is relatively automatic but may be modulated by instructions to the participant. The second response is probably a voluntary one.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 10672466     DOI: 10.1007/s002219900237

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Exp Brain Res        ISSN: 0014-4819            Impact factor:   1.972


  73 in total

1.  Comparison of voice F0 responses to pitch-shift onset and offset conditions.

Authors:  C R Larson; T A Burnett; J J Bauer; S Kiran; T C Hain
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2001-12       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  Understanding the neural mechanisms involved in sensory control of voice production.

Authors:  Amy L Parkinson; Sabina G Flagmeier; Jordan L Manes; Charles R Larson; Bill Rogers; Donald A Robin
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2012-03-03       Impact factor: 6.556

3.  The role of auditory feedback in sustaining vocal vibrato.

Authors:  Ciara Leydon; Jay J Bauer; Charles R Larson
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2003-09       Impact factor: 1.840

4.  Compensation for pitch-shifted auditory feedback during the production of Mandarin tone sequences.

Authors:  Yi Xu; Charles R Larson; Jay J Bauer; Timothy C Hain
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2004-08       Impact factor: 1.840

5.  Effect of tonal native language on voice fundamental frequency responses to pitch feedback perturbations during sustained vocalizations.

Authors:  Hanjun Liu; Emily Q Wang; Zhaocong Chen; Peng Liu; Charles R Larson; Dongfeng Huang
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2010-12       Impact factor: 1.840

6.  The neural changes in connectivity of the voice network during voice pitch perturbation.

Authors:  Sabina G Flagmeier; Kimberly L Ray; Amy L Parkinson; Karl Li; Robert Vargas; Larry R Price; Angela R Laird; Charles R Larson; Donald A Robin
Journal:  Brain Lang       Date:  2014-03-27       Impact factor: 2.381

7.  Voice responses to changes in pitch of voice or tone auditory feedback.

Authors:  Mahalakshmi Sivasankar; Jay J Bauer; Tara Babu; Charles R Larson
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2005-02       Impact factor: 1.840

8.  Does an auditory perceptual illusion affect on-line auditory action control? The case of (de)accentuation and synchronization.

Authors:  Bruno H Repp
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2005-09-22       Impact factor: 1.972

9.  Noninvasive neurostimulation of left ventral motor cortex enhances sensorimotor adaptation in speech production.

Authors:  Terri L Scott; Laura Haenchen; Ayoub Daliri; Julia Chartove; Frank H Guenther; Tyler K Perrachione
Journal:  Brain Lang       Date:  2020-07-29       Impact factor: 2.381

10.  Talkers alter vowel production in response to real-time formant perturbation even when instructed not to compensate.

Authors:  K G Munhall; E N MacDonald; S K Byrne; I Johnsrude
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2009-01       Impact factor: 1.840

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.