Literature DB >> 16642849

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

Jay J Bauer1, Jay Mittal, Charles R Larson, Timothy C Hain.   

Abstract

The present study tested whether subjects respond to unanticipated short perturbations in voice loudness feedback with compensatory responses in voice amplitude. The role of stimulus magnitude (+/- 1,3 vs 6 dB SPL), stimulus direction (up vs down), and the ongoing voice amplitude level (normal vs soft) were compared across compensations. Subjects responded to perturbations in voice loudness feedback with a compensatory change in voice amplitude 76% of the time. Mean latency of amplitude compensation was 157 ms. Mean response magnitudes were smallest for 1-dB stimulus perturbations (0.75 dB) and greatest for 6-dB conditions (0.98 dB). However, expressed as gain, responses for 1-dB perturbations were largest and almost approached 1.0. Response magnitudes were larger for the soft voice amplitude condition compared to the normal voice amplitude condition. A mathematical model of the audio-vocal system captured the main features of the compensations. Previous research has demonstrated that subjects can respond to an unanticipated perturbation in voice pitch feedback with an automatic compensatory response in voice fundamental frequency. Data from the present study suggest that voice loudness feedback can be used in a similar manner to monitor and stabilize voice amplitude around a desired loudness level.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16642849      PMCID: PMC1752220          DOI: 10.1121/1.2173513

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


  23 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.  Control of voice fundamental frequency in speaking versus singing.

Authors:  Ulrich Natke; Thomas M Donath; Karl Th Kalveram
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2003-03       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  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

4.  Prosodic comprehension and expression in schizophrenia.

Authors:  D Murphy; J Cutting
Journal:  J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry       Date:  1990-09       Impact factor: 10.154

5.  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

6.  Early pitch-shift response is active in both steady and dynamic voice pitch control.

Authors:  Theresa A Burnett; Charles R Larson
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2002-09       Impact factor: 1.840

7.  Audio-vocal responses to repetitive pitch-shift stimulation during a sustained vocalization: improvements in methodology for the pitch-shifting technique.

Authors:  Jay J Bauer; Charles R Larson
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2003-08       Impact factor: 1.840

8.  Auditory feedback in the regulation of voice.

Authors:  G M Siegel; H L Pick
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1974-11       Impact factor: 1.840

9.  Muscle potentials in reaction time.

Authors:  E Luschei; C Saslow; M Glickstein
Journal:  Exp Neurol       Date:  1967-08       Impact factor: 5.330

10.  Lombard and sidetone amplification effects in normal and misarticulating children.

Authors:  G M Siegel; K L Kennard
Journal:  J Speech Hear Res       Date:  1984-03
View more
  61 in total

1.  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

2.  A cross-language study of compensation in response to real-time formant perturbation.

Authors:  Takashi Mitsuya; Ewen N Macdonald; David W Purcell; Kevin G Munhall
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2011-11       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  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

4.  Dynamics of phonatory posturing at phonation onset.

Authors:  Travis L Shiba; Dinesh K Chhetri
Journal:  Laryngoscope       Date:  2015-12-21       Impact factor: 3.325

5.  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

6.  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

7.  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

8.  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

9.  The integration of large-scale neural network modeling and functional brain imaging in speech motor control.

Authors:  E Golfinopoulos; J A Tourville; F H Guenther
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2009-10-23       Impact factor: 6.556

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.