Literature DB >> 21173388

Prosodic adaptations to pitch perturbation in running speech.

Rupal Patel1, Caroline Niziolek, Kevin Reilly, Frank H Guenther.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: A feedback perturbation paradigm was used to investigate whether prosodic cues are controlled independently or in an integrated fashion during sentence production.
METHOD: Twenty-one healthy speakers of American English were asked to produce sentences with emphatic stress while receiving real-time auditory feedback of their productions. The fundamental frequency (F0) of the stressed word in each 4-word sentence was selectively shifted in a sensorimotor adaptation protocol. Speakers experienced either an upward or a downward shift of the stressed word, which gradually altered the perceived stress of the sentence.
RESULTS: Participants in the Up and Down groups adapted to F0 shifts by altering the contrast between stressed and unstressed words differentially, such that the two groups deviated from each other in the perturbation phase. Furthermore, selective F0 perturbation in sentences with emphatic stress resulted in compensatory changes in both F0 and intensity.
CONCLUSIONS: Present findings suggest that F0 and intensity are controlled in an integrated fashion to maintain the contrast between stressed and unstressed words. When a cue is impaired through perturbation, speakers not only oppose the perturbation but enhance other prosodic cues to achieve emphatic stress.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 21173388      PMCID: PMC3352853          DOI: 10.1044/1092-4388(2010/10-0162)

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


  35 in total

1.  Prosodic variation in southern British English.

Authors:  S Peppé; J Maxim; B Wells
Journal:  Lang Speech       Date:  2000 Jul-Sep       Impact factor: 1.500

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.  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

4.  Neural modeling and imaging of the cortical interactions underlying syllable production.

Authors:  Frank H Guenther; Satrajit S Ghosh; Jason A Tourville
Journal:  Brain Lang       Date:  2005-07-22       Impact factor: 2.381

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

Authors:  Jay J Bauer; Jay Mittal; Charles R Larson; Timothy C Hain
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2006-04       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.  Sensorimotor adaptation to feedback perturbations of vowel acoustics and its relation to perception.

Authors:  Virgilio M Villacorta; Joseph S Perkell; Frank H Guenther
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2007-10       Impact factor: 1.840

8.  Voice F0 responses to pitch-shifted voice feedback during English speech.

Authors:  Stephanie H Chen; Hanjun Liu; Yi Xu; Charles R Larson
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2007-02       Impact factor: 1.840

9.  The influence of linguistic content on the Lombard effect.

Authors:  Rupal Patel; Kevin W Schell
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2008-02       Impact factor: 2.297

10.  Acoustic and perceptual cues to contrastive stress in dysarthria.

Authors:  Rupal Patel; Pamela Campellone
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2008-08-11       Impact factor: 2.297

View more
  10 in total

1.  Effects of Parkinson's Disease on Fundamental Frequency Variability in Running Speech.

Authors:  Leah K Bowen; Gabrielle L Hands; Sujata Pradhan; Cara E Stepp
Journal:  J Med Speech Lang Pathol       Date:  2013-09

2.  Responses to Intensity-Shifted Auditory Feedback During Running Speech.

Authors:  Rupal Patel; Kevin J Reilly; Erin Archibald; Shanqing Cai; Frank H Guenther
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2015-12       Impact factor: 2.297

3.  Evidence for Auditory-Motor Impairment in Individuals With Hyperfunctional Voice Disorders.

Authors:  Cara E Stepp; Rosemary A Lester-Smith; Defne Abur; Ayoub Daliri; J Pieter Noordzij; Ashling A Lupiani
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2017-06-10       Impact factor: 2.297

4.  A Dual-Stream Neuroanatomy of Singing.

Authors:  Psyche Loui
Journal:  Music Percept       Date:  2015-02

5.  A bilateral cortical network responds to pitch perturbations in speech feedback.

Authors:  Naomi S Kort; Srikantan S Nagarajan; John F Houde
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2013-09-25       Impact factor: 6.556

6.  LaDIVA: A neurocomputational model providing laryngeal motor control for speech acquisition and production.

Authors:  Hasini R Weerathunge; Gabriel A Alzamendi; Gabriel J Cler; Frank H Guenther; Cara E Stepp; Matías Zañartu
Journal:  PLoS Comput Biol       Date:  2022-06-23       Impact factor: 4.779

7.  Effects of syllable stress in adaptation to altered auditory feedback in vowels.

Authors:  Sarah Bakst; Caroline A Niziolek
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2021-01       Impact factor: 1.840

8.  Assessing Ecologically Valid Methods of Auditory Feedback Measurement in Individuals With Typical Speech.

Authors:  Nicole E Tomassi; Hasini R Weerathunge; Megan R Cushman; Jason W Bohland; Cara E Stepp
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2021-12-23       Impact factor: 2.674

9.  Group and individual variability in speech production networks during delayed auditory feedback.

Authors:  Z K Agnew; C McGettigan; B Banks; S K Scott
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2018-05       Impact factor: 1.840

10.  Sensorimotor adaptation of voice fundamental frequency in Parkinson's disease.

Authors:  Defne Abur; Rosemary A Lester-Smith; Ayoub Daliri; Ashling A Lupiani; Frank H Guenther; Cara E Stepp
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-01-26       Impact factor: 3.240

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.