Literature DB >> 19173425

Talkers alter vowel production in response to real-time formant perturbation even when instructed not to compensate.

K G Munhall1, E N MacDonald, S K Byrne, I Johnsrude.   

Abstract

Talkers show sensitivity to a range of perturbations of auditory feedback (e.g., manipulation of vocal amplitude, fundamental frequency and formant frequency). Here, 50 subjects spoke a monosyllable ("head"), and the formants in their speech were shifted in real time using a custom signal processing system that provided feedback over headphones. First and second formants were altered so that the auditory feedback matched subjects' production of "had." Three different instructions were tested: (1) control, in which subjects were naive about the feedback manipulation, (2) ignore headphones, in which subjects were told that their voice might sound different and to ignore what they heard in the headphones, and (3) avoid compensation, in which subjects were informed in detail about the manipulation and were told not to compensate. Despite explicit instruction to ignore the feedback changes, subjects produced a robust compensation in all conditions. There were no differences in the magnitudes of the first or second formant changes between groups. In general, subjects altered their vowel formant values in a direction opposite to the perturbation, as if to cancel its effects. These results suggest that compensation in the face of formant perturbation is relatively automatic, and the response is not easily modified by conscious strategy.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19173425      PMCID: PMC2658635          DOI: 10.1121/1.3035829

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


  26 in total

Review 1.  Auditory feedback in learning and maintenance of vocal behaviour.

Authors:  M S Brainard; A J Doupe
Journal:  Nat Rev Neurosci       Date:  2000-10       Impact factor: 34.870

Review 2.  What do reflex and voluntary mean? Modern views on an ancient debate.

Authors:  A Prochazka; F Clarac; G E Loeb; J C Rothwell; J R Wolpaw
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2000-02       Impact factor: 1.972

3.  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

4.  Multiple paired forward and inverse models for motor control.

Authors:  D M Wolpert; M Kawato
Journal:  Neural Netw       Date:  1998-10

5.  Somatosensory basis of speech production.

Authors:  Stéphanie Tremblay; Douglas M Shiller; David J Ostry
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2003-06-19       Impact factor: 49.962

6.  Recalibration of phonetic categories by lipread speech versus lexical information.

Authors:  Sabine van Linden; Jean Vroomen
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2007-12       Impact factor: 3.332

7.  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

8.  Sensorimotor adaptation in speech production.

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

9.  Inhibiting the Lombard effect.

Authors:  H L Pick; G M Siegel; P W Fox; S R Garber; J K Kearney
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1989-02       Impact factor: 1.840

10.  Indication of a Lombard vocal response in the St. Lawrence River Beluga.

Authors:  P M Scheifele; S Andrew; R A Cooper; M Darre; F E Musiek; L Max
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2005-03       Impact factor: 1.840

View more
  40 in total

1.  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

2.  Adaptive auditory feedback control of the production of formant trajectories in the Mandarin triphthong /iau/ and its pattern of generalization.

Authors:  Shanqing Cai; Satrajit S Ghosh; Frank H Guenther; Joseph S Perkell
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2010-10       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  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

4.  Compensations in response to real-time formant perturbations of different magnitudes.

Authors:  Ewen N MacDonald; Robyn Goldberg; Kevin G Munhall
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 1.840

5.  Probing the independence of formant control using altered auditory feedback.

Authors:  Ewen N MacDonald; David W Purcell; Kevin G Munhall
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2011-02       Impact factor: 1.840

6.  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

7.  Effects of real-time cochlear implant simulation on speech production.

Authors:  Elizabeth D Casserly
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2015-05       Impact factor: 1.840

Review 8.  Modeling the Role of Sensory Feedback in Speech Motor Control and Learning.

Authors:  Benjamin Parrell; John Houde
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2019-08-29       Impact factor: 2.297

9.  Variability of articulator positions and formants across nine English vowels.

Authors:  D H Whalen; Wei-Rong Chen; Mark K Tiede; Hosung Nam
Journal:  J Phon       Date:  2018-02-23

10.  Brief periods of auditory perceptual training can determine the sensory targets of speech motor learning.

Authors:  Daniel R Lametti; Sonia A Krol; Douglas M Shiller; David J Ostry
Journal:  Psychol Sci       Date:  2014-05-08
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.