Literature DB >> 21110603

An investigation of the relation between sibilant production and somatosensory and auditory acuity.

Satrajit S Ghosh1, Melanie L Matthies, Edwin Maas, Alexandra Hanson, Mark Tiede, Lucie Ménard, Frank H Guenther, Harlan Lane, Joseph S Perkell.   

Abstract

The relation between auditory acuity, somatosensory acuity and the magnitude of produced sibilant contrast was investigated with data from 18 participants. To measure auditory acuity, stimuli from a synthetic sibilant continuum ([s]-[ʃ]) were used in a four-interval, two-alternative forced choice adaptive-staircase discrimination task. To measure somatosensory acuity, small plastic domes with grooves of different spacing were pressed against each participant's tongue tip and the participant was asked to identify one of four possible orientations of the grooves. Sibilant contrast magnitudes were estimated from productions of the words 'said,' 'shed,' 'sid,' and 'shid'. Multiple linear regression revealed a significant relation indicating that a combination of somatosensory and auditory acuity measures predicts produced acoustic contrast. When the participants were divided into high- and low-acuity groups based on their median somatosensory and auditory acuity measures, separate ANOVA analyses with sibilant contrast as the dependent variable yielded a significant main effect for each acuity group. These results provide evidence that sibilant productions have auditory as well as somatosensory goals and are consistent with prior results and the theoretical framework underlying the DIVA model of speech production.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 21110603      PMCID: PMC3003728          DOI: 10.1121/1.3493430

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


  38 in total

1.  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

2.  Movement goals and feedback and feedforward control mechanisms in speech production.

Authors:  Joseph S Perkell
Journal:  J Neurolinguistics       Date:  2010-03-26       Impact factor: 1.710

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.  Effects of masking noise on vowel and sibilant contrasts in normal-hearing speakers and postlingually deafened cochlear implant users.

Authors:  Joseph S Perkell; Margaret Denny; Harlan Lane; Frank Guenther; Melanie L Matthies; Mark Tiede; Jennell Vick; Majid Zandipour; Ellen Burton
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2007-01       Impact factor: 1.840

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.  Spatiotemporal stability of lip movements in older adult speakers.

Authors:  A B Wohlert; A Smith
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  1998-02       Impact factor: 2.297

8.  Sensorimotor adaptation in speech production.

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

9.  Trading relations between tongue-body raising and lip rounding in production of the vowel /u/: a pilot "motor equivalence" study.

Authors:  J S Perkell; M L Matthies; M A Svirsky; M I Jordan
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1993-05       Impact factor: 1.840

10.  Speech motor learning in profoundly deaf adults.

Authors:  Sazzad M Nasir; David J Ostry
Journal:  Nat Neurosci       Date:  2008-09-14       Impact factor: 24.884

View more
  22 in total

1.  Movement goals and feedback and feedforward control mechanisms in speech production.

Authors:  Joseph S Perkell
Journal:  J Neurolinguistics       Date:  2010-03-26       Impact factor: 1.710

2.  Deriving individualised /r/ targets from the acoustics of children's non-rhotic vowels.

Authors:  Heather Campbell; Tara McAllister Byun
Journal:  Clin Linguist Phon       Date:  2017-07-13       Impact factor: 1.346

3.  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

4.  Can perceptual training alter the effect of visual biofeedback in speech-motor learning?

Authors:  Adam Klaus; Daniel R Lametti; Douglas M Shiller; Tara McAllister
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2019-02       Impact factor: 1.840

5.  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

6.  Feedforward and feedback control in apraxia of speech: effects of noise masking on vowel production.

Authors:  Edwin Maas; Marja-Liisa Mailend; Frank H Guenther
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2015-04       Impact factor: 2.297

7.  Auditory feedback control is involved at even sub-phonemic levels of speech production.

Authors:  Frank H Guenther
Journal:  Lang Cogn Process       Date:  2014-01-01

8.  Cross-modal effects in speech perception.

Authors:  Megan Keough; Donald Derrick; Bryan Gick
Journal:  Annu Rev Linguist       Date:  2018-08-01

Review 9.  Speech and nonspeech: What are we talking about?

Authors:  Edwin Maas
Journal:  Int J Speech Lang Pathol       Date:  2016-10-05       Impact factor: 2.484

10.  Noninvasive neurostimulation of left ventral motor cortex enhances sensorimotor adaptation in speech production.

Authors:  Terri L Scott; Laura Haenchen; Ayoub Daliri; Julia Chartove; Frank H Guenther; Tyler K Perrachione
Journal:  Brain Lang       Date:  2020-07-29       Impact factor: 2.381

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.