Literature DB >> 20966388

The influence of auditory acuity on acoustic variability and the use of motor equivalence during adaptation to a perturbation.

Jana Brunner1, Satrajit Ghosh, Philip Hoole, Melanie Matthies, Mark Tiede, Joseph Perkell.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to relate speakers' auditory acuity for the sibilant contrast, their use of motor equivalent trading relationships in producing the sibilant /∫/, and their produced acoustic distance between the sibilants /s/ and /∫/. Specifically, the study tested the hypotheses that during adaptation to a perturbation of vocal-tract shape, high-acuity speakers use motor equivalence strategies to a greater extent than do low-acuity speakers in order to reach their smaller phonemic goal regions, and that high-acuity speakers produce greater acoustic distance between 2 sibilant phonemes than do low-acuity speakers.
METHOD: Articulographic data from 7 German speakers adapting to a perturbation were analyzed for the use of motor equivalence. The speakers' produced acoustic distance between /s/ and /∫/ was calculated. Auditory acuity was assessed for the same speakers.
RESULTS: High-acuity speakers used motor equivalence to a greater extent when adapting to a perturbation than did low-acuity speakers. Additionally, high-acuity speakers produced greater acoustic contrasts than did low-acuity-speakers. It was observed that speech rate had an influence on the use of motor equivalence: Slow speakers used motor equivalence to a lesser degree than did fast speakers.
CONCLUSION: These results provide support for the mutual interdependence of speech perception and production.

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20966388     DOI: 10.1044/1092-4388(2010/09-0256)

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res        ISSN: 1092-4388            Impact factor:   2.297


  6 in total

1.  Spectral dynamics of sibilant fricatives are contrastive and language specific.

Authors:  Patrick F Reidy
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2016-10       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  Contribution of sensory memory to speech motor learning.

Authors:  Takayuki Ito; Jiachuan Bai; David J Ostry
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2020-09-09       Impact factor: 2.714

3.  Swallowing Kinematic Differences Across Frozen, Mixed, and Ultrathin Liquid Boluses in Healthy Adults: Age, Sex, and Normal Variability.

Authors:  Ianessa A Humbert; Kirstyn L Sunday; Eleni Karagiorgos; Alicia K Vose; Francois Gould; Lindsey Greene; Alba Azola; Ara Tolar; Alycia Rivet
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2018-07-13       Impact factor: 2.297

4.  Evaluating the tongue-hold maneuver using high-resolution manometry and electromyography.

Authors:  Michael J Hammer; Corinne A Jones; Corrine A Jones; Jason D Mielens; Chloe H Kim; Timothy M McCulloch
Journal:  Dysphagia       Date:  2014-06-27       Impact factor: 3.438

5.  Temporal malleability to auditory feedback perturbation is modulated by rhythmic abilities and auditory acuity.

Authors:  Miriam Oschkinat; Philip Hoole; Simone Falk; Simone Dalla Bella
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2022-09-15       Impact factor: 3.473

6.  Examining the Relationship Between Speech Perception, Production Distinctness, and Production Variability.

Authors:  Hung-Shao Cheng; Caroline A Niziolek; Adam Buchwald; Tara McAllister
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2021-05-28       Impact factor: 3.169

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.