Literature DB >> 18592224

Auditory-motor mapping for pitch control in singers and nonsingers.

Jeffery A Jones1, Dwayne Keough.   

Abstract

Little is known about the basic processes underlying the behavior of singing. This experiment was designed to examine differences in the representation of the mapping between fundamental frequency (F0) feedback and the vocal production system in singers and nonsingers. Auditory feedback regarding F0 was shifted down in frequency while participants sang the consonant-vowel /ta/. During the initial frequency-altered trials, singers compensated to a lesser degree than nonsingers, but this difference was reduced with continued exposure to frequency-altered feedback. After brief exposure to frequency altered auditory feedback, both singers and nonsingers suddenly heard their F0 unaltered. When participants received this unaltered feedback, only singers' F0 values were found to be significantly higher than their F0 values produced during baseline and control trials. These aftereffects in singers were replicated when participants sang a different note than the note they produced while hearing altered feedback. Together, these results suggest that singers rely more on internal models than nonsingers to regulate vocal productions rather than real time auditory feedback.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18592224      PMCID: PMC2644332          DOI: 10.1007/s00221-008-1473-y

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


  33 in total

1.  Significance of auditory and kinesthetic feedback to singers' pitch control.

Authors:  Dirk Mürbe; Friedemann Pabst; Gert Hofmann; Johan Sundberg
Journal:  J Voice       Date:  2002-03       Impact factor: 2.009

2.  Perceptual calibration of F0 production: evidence from feedback perturbation.

Authors:  J A Jones; K G Munhall
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2000-09       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  Learning to produce speech with an altered vocal tract: the role of auditory feedback.

Authors:  Jeffery A Jones; K G Munhall
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2003-01       Impact factor: 1.840

4.  Remapping auditory-motor representations in voice production.

Authors:  Jeffery A Jones; K G Munhall
Journal:  Curr Biol       Date:  2005-10-11       Impact factor: 10.834

5.  Experience-dependent neural substrates involved in vocal pitch regulation during singing.

Authors:  Jean Mary Zarate; Robert J Zatorre
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2008-02-01       Impact factor: 6.556

6.  Sensorimotor adaptation in speech production.

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

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

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

8.  An internal model for sensorimotor integration.

Authors:  D M Wolpert; Z Ghahramani; M I Jordan
Journal:  Science       Date:  1995-09-29       Impact factor: 47.728

9.  Effects of frequency-shifted feedback on the pitch of vocal productions.

Authors:  J L ELman
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1981-07       Impact factor: 1.840

10.  Human laryngeal responses to auditory stimulation.

Authors:  S Sapir; M D McClean; C R Larson
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1983-01       Impact factor: 1.840

View more
  32 in total

1.  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

2.  Cerebellar contribution to auditory feedback control of speech production: Evidence from patients with spinocerebellar ataxia.

Authors:  Weifeng Li; Jiajun Zhuang; Zhiqiang Guo; Jeffery A Jones; Zhiqin Xu; Hanjun Liu
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2019-07-31       Impact factor: 5.038

3.  Multiple instances of vocal sensorimotor adaptation to frequency-altered feedback within a single experimental session.

Authors:  Colin S Hawco; Jeffery A Jones
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 1.840

4.  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

5.  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

6.  Intermittent theta burst stimulation over right somatosensory larynx cortex enhances vocal pitch-regulation in nonsingers.

Authors:  Sebastian Finkel; Ralf Veit; Martin Lotze; Anders Friberg; Peter Vuust; Surjo Soekadar; Niels Birbaumer; Boris Kleber
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2019-01-21       Impact factor: 5.038

7.  Contextual cuing contributes to the independent modification of multiple internal models for vocal control.

Authors:  Dwayne Keough; Jeffery A Jones
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2011-02-23       Impact factor: 2.714

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.  Neural bases of sensorimotor adaptation in the vocal motor system.

Authors:  Roozbeh Behroozmand; Stacey Sangtian
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2018-04-25       Impact factor: 1.972

10.  Control of vocalization at utterance onset and mid-utterance: different mechanisms for different goals.

Authors:  Colin S Hawco; Jeffery A Jones
Journal:  Brain Res       Date:  2009-04-24       Impact factor: 3.252

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.