Literature DB >> 15759705

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

Mahalakshmi Sivasankar1, Jay J Bauer, Tara Babu, Charles R Larson.   

Abstract

The present study was undertaken to examine if a subject's voice F0 responded not only to perturbations in pitch of voice feedback but also to changes in pitch of a side tone presented congruent with voice feedback. Small magnitude brief duration perturbations in pitch of voice or tone auditory feedback were randomly introduced during sustained vowel phonations. Results demonstrated a higher rate and larger magnitude of voice F0 responses to changes in pitch of the voice compared with a triangular-shaped tone (experiment 1) or a pure tone (experiment 2). However, response latencies did not differ across voice or tone conditions. Data suggest that subjects responded to the change in F0 rather than harmonic frequencies of auditory feedback because voice F0 response prevalence, magnitude, or latency did not statistically differ across triangular-shaped tone or pure-tone feedback. Results indicate the audio-vocal system is sensitive to the change in pitch of a variety of sounds, which may represent a flexible system capable of adapting to changes in the subject's voice. However, lower prevalence and smaller responses to tone pitch-shifted signals suggest that the audio-vocal system may resist changes to the pitch of other environmental sounds when voice feedback is present.

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15759705      PMCID: PMC1351107          DOI: 10.1121/1.1849933

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


  27 in total

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

Authors:  T C Hain; T A Burnett; S Kiran; C R Larson; S Singh; M K Kenney
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2000-01       Impact factor: 1.972

2.  Effects of pitch-shift velocity on voice Fo responses.

Authors:  C R Larson; T A Burnett; S Kiran; T C Hain
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2000-01       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  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

4.  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

5.  Effects of delayed auditory feedback (DAF) on the pitch-shift reflex.

Authors:  T C Hain; T A Burnett; C R Larson; S Kiran
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2001-05       Impact factor: 1.840

6.  Voice F0 responses to manipulations in pitch feedback.

Authors:  T A Burnett; M B Freedland; C R Larson; T C Hain
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1998-06       Impact factor: 1.840

7.  Sensorimotor adaptation in speech production.

Authors:  J F Houde; M I Jordan
Journal:  Science       Date:  1998-02-20       Impact factor: 47.728

8.  Compensation to articulatory perturbation: perceptual data.

Authors:  S R Baum; D H McFarland; M Diab
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1996-06       Impact factor: 1.840

9.  Significance of mechanoreceptors in the subglottal mucosa for subglottal pressure control in singers.

Authors:  J Sundberg; J Iwarsson; A H Billström
Journal:  J Voice       Date:  1995-03       Impact factor: 2.009

10.  Physiologic responses to loud tones in Israeli patients with posttraumatic stress disorder.

Authors:  A Y Shalev; S P Orr; T Peri; S Schreiber; R K Pitman
Journal:  Arch Gen Psychiatry       Date:  1992-11
View more
  18 in total

1.  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

2.  Speaker compensation for local perturbation of fricative acoustic feedback.

Authors:  Elizabeth D Casserly
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2011-04       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  Effects of voice harmonic complexity on ERP responses to pitch-shifted auditory feedback.

Authors:  Roozbeh Behroozmand; Oleg Korzyukov; Charles R Larson
Journal:  Clin Neurophysiol       Date:  2011-06-29       Impact factor: 3.708

4.  Pitch Shifting With the Commercially Available Eventide Eclipse: Intended and Unintended Changes to the Speech Signal.

Authors:  Elizabeth S Heller Murray; Ashling A Lupiani; Katharine R Kolin; Roxanne K Segina; Cara E Stepp
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2019-06-28       Impact factor: 2.297

5.  ERP correlates of pitch error detection in complex tone and voice auditory feedback with missing fundamental.

Authors:  Roozbeh Behroozmand; Oleg Korzyukov; Charles R Larson
Journal:  Brain Res       Date:  2012-02-12       Impact factor: 3.252

6.  Temporal control and compensation for perturbed voicing feedback.

Authors:  Takashi Mitsuya; Ewen N MacDonald; Kevin G Munhall
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2014-05       Impact factor: 1.840

7.  Understanding the mechanisms underlying voluntary responses to pitch-shifted auditory feedback.

Authors:  Sona Patel; Cristina Nishimura; Anjli Lodhavia; Oleg Korzyukov; Amy Parkinson; Donald A Robin; Charles R Larson
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2014-05       Impact factor: 1.840

8.  Auditory-Motor Perturbations of Voice Fundamental Frequency: Feedback Delay and Amplification.

Authors:  Hasini R Weerathunge; Defne Abur; Nicole M Enos; Katherine M Brown; Cara E Stepp
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2020-08-03       Impact factor: 2.297

9.  Time-dependent neural processing of auditory feedback during voice pitch error detection.

Authors:  Roozbeh Behroozmand; Hanjun Liu; Charles R Larson
Journal:  J Cogn Neurosci       Date:  2010-02-10       Impact factor: 3.225

Review 10.  Sensory feedback control of mammalian vocalizations.

Authors:  Michael S Smotherman
Journal:  Behav Brain Res       Date:  2007-03-14       Impact factor: 3.332

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.