Literature DB >> 12083218

Timing interference to speech in altered listening conditions.

Peter Howell1, Stevie Sackin.   

Abstract

A theory is outlined that explains the disruption that occurs when auditory feedback is altered. The key part of the theory is that the number of, and relationship between, inputs to a timekeeper, operative during speech control, affects speech performance. The effects of alteration to auditory feedback depend on the extra input provided to the timekeeper. Different disruption is predicted for auditory feedback that is out of synchrony with other speech activity (e.g., delayed auditory feedback, DAF) compared with synchronous forms of altered feedback (e.g., frequency shifted feedback, FSF). Stimulus manipulations that can be made synchronously with speech are predicted to cause equivalent disruption to the synchronous form of altered feedback. Three experiments are reported. In all of them, subjects repeated a syllable at a fixed rate (Wing and Kristofferson, 1973). Overall timing variance was decomposed into the variance of a timekeeper (Cv) and the variance of a motor process (Mv). Experiment 1 validated Wing and Kristofferson's method for estimating Cv in a speech task by showing that only this variance component increased when subjects repeated syllables at different rates. Experiment 2 showed DAF increased Cv compared with when no altered sound occurred (experiment 1) and compared with FSF. In experiment 3, sections of the subject's output sequence were increased in amplitude. Subjects just heard this sound in one condition and made a duration decision about it in a second condition. When no response was made, results were like those with FSF. When a response was made, Cv increased at longer repetition periods. The findings that the principal effect of DAF, a duration decision and repetition period is on Cv whereas synchronous alterations that do not require a decision (amplitude increased sections where no response was made and FSF) do not affect Cv, support the hypothesis that the timekeeping process is affected by synchronized and asynchronized inputs in different ways.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12083218      PMCID: PMC2020813          DOI: 10.1121/1.1474444

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am        ISSN: 0001-4966            Impact factor:   1.840


  9 in total

1.  Effects of frequency-shifted auditory feedback on fundamental frequency of long stressed and unstressed syllables.

Authors:  U Natke; K T Kalveram
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2001-06       Impact factor: 2.297

Review 2.  Detection of errors during speech production: a review of speech monitoring models.

Authors:  A Postma
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  2000-11-16

3.  Selective vocal effects of delayed auditory feedback.

Authors:  G FAIRBANKS
Journal:  J Speech Hear Disord       Date:  1955-12

4.  Changes in voice level caused by several forms of altered feedback in fluent speakers and stutterers.

Authors:  P Howell
Journal:  Lang Speech       Date:  1990 Oct-Dec       Impact factor: 1.500

5.  When two hands are better than one: reduced timing variability during bimanual movements.

Authors:  L L Helmuth; R B Ivry
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  1996-04       Impact factor: 3.332

6.  An interpretation of research of feedback interruption in speech.

Authors:  G J Borden
Journal:  Brain Lang       Date:  1979-05       Impact factor: 2.381

7.  Perception and production of temporal intervals across a range of durations: evidence for a common timing mechanism.

Authors:  R B Ivry; R E Hazeltine
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  1995-02       Impact factor: 3.332

8.  Susceptibility to the effects of delayed auditory feedback.

Authors:  P Howell; A Archer
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  1984-09

9.  Speech Rate Modification and Its Effects on Fluency Reversal in Fluent Speakers and People Who Stutter.

Authors:  Peter Howell; Stevie Sackin
Journal:  J Dev Phys Disabil       Date:  2000-12-01
  9 in total
  16 in total

1.  Focal manipulations of formant trajectories reveal a role of auditory feedback in the online control of both within-syllable and between-syllable speech timing.

Authors:  Shanqing Cai; Satrajit S Ghosh; Frank H Guenther; Joseph S Perkell
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2011-11-09       Impact factor: 6.167

2.  Speech disruption during delayed auditory feedback with simultaneous visual feedback.

Authors:  Jeffery A Jones; Danielle Striemer
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2007-10       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  Comparison of acoustic and kinematic approaches to measuring utterance-level speech variability.

Authors:  Peter Howell; Andrew J Anderson; Jon Bartrip; Eleanor Bailey
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2009-06-29       Impact factor: 2.297

4.  Effects of delayed auditory and visual feedback on sequence production.

Authors:  J D Kulpa; Peter Q Pfordresher
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2012-10-09       Impact factor: 1.972

5.  Behavioral effects arising from the neural substrates for atypical planning and execution of word production in stuttering.

Authors:  Peter Howell
Journal:  Exp Neurol       Date:  2010-06-23       Impact factor: 5.330

6.  Effect of Speaking Environment on Speech Production and Perception.

Authors:  Peter Howell
Journal:  J Hum Environ Syst       Date:  2008-11

7.  Cerebellar activity and stuttering: comments on Max and Yudman (2003).

Authors:  Peter Howell
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2004-02       Impact factor: 2.297

8.  Effects of delayed auditory feedback on speech kinematics in fluent speakers.

Authors:  Jayanthi Sasisekaran
Journal:  Percept Mot Skills       Date:  2012-12

9.  Adaptation to delayed auditory feedback induces the temporal recalibration effect in both speech perception and production.

Authors:  Kosuke Yamamoto; Hideaki Kawabata
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2014-08-09       Impact factor: 1.972

10.  Effects of delayed auditory feedback and frequency-shifted feedback on speech control and some potentials for future development of prosthetic aids for stammering.

Authors:  Peter Howell
Journal:  Stammering Res       Date:  2004-04-01
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.