Literature DB >> 12656393

Control of voice fundamental frequency in speaking versus singing.

Ulrich Natke1, Thomas M Donath, Karl Th Kalveram.   

Abstract

In order to investigate control of voice fundamental frequency (F0) in speaking and singing, 24 adults had to utter the nonsense word ['ta:tatas] repeatedly, while in selected trials their auditory feedback was frequency-shifted by 100 cents downwards. In the speaking condition the target speech rate and prosodic pattern were indicated by a rhythmic sequence made of white noise. In the singing condition the sequence consisted of piano notes, and subjects were instructed to match the pitch of the notes. In both conditions a response in voice F0 begins with a latency of about 150 ms. As predicted, response magnitude is greater in the singing condition (66 cents) than in the speaking condition (47 cents). Furthermore the singing condition seems to prolong the after-effect which is a continuation of the response in trials after the frequency shift. In the singing condition, response magnitude and the ability to match the target F0 correlate significantly. Results support the view that in speaking voice F0 is monitored mainly supra-segmentally and controlled less tightly than in singing.

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12656393     DOI: 10.1121/1.1543928

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


  41 in total

1.  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

2.  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

3.  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

4.  Vocal responses to unanticipated perturbations in voice loudness feedback: an automatic mechanism for stabilizing voice amplitude.

Authors:  Jay J Bauer; Jay Mittal; Charles R Larson; Timothy C Hain
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2006-04       Impact factor: 1.840

5.  Neural mechanisms underlying auditory feedback control of speech.

Authors:  Jason A Tourville; Kevin J Reilly; Frank H Guenther
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2007-10-11       Impact factor: 6.556

6.  Attenuation of vocal responses to pitch perturbations during Mandarin speech.

Authors:  Hanjun Liu; Yi Xu; Charles R Larson
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2009-04       Impact factor: 1.840

7.  The role of vowel perceptual cues in compensatory responses to perturbations of speech auditory feedback.

Authors:  Kevin J Reilly; Kathleen E Dougherty
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2013-08       Impact factor: 1.840

8.  Laryngeal electromyographic responses to perturbations in voice pitch auditory feedback.

Authors:  Hanjun Liu; Roozbeh Behroozmand; Michel Bove; Charles R Larson
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2011-06       Impact factor: 1.840

9.  Age-related differences in vocal responses to pitch feedback perturbations: a preliminary study.

Authors:  Hanjun Liu; Nicole M Russo; Charles R Larson
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 1.840

10.  Audio-vocal system regulation in children with autism spectrum disorders.

Authors:  Nicole Russo; Charles Larson; Nina Kraus
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2008-03-18       Impact factor: 1.972

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.