Literature DB >> 25061925

Dynamics of self-monitoring and error detection in speech production: evidence from mental imagery and MEG.

Xing Tian1, David Poeppel.   

Abstract

A critical subroutine of self-monitoring during speech production is to detect any deviance between expected and actual auditory feedback. Here we investigated the associated neural dynamics using MEG recording in mental-imagery-of-speech paradigms. Participants covertly articulated the vowel /a/; their own (individually recorded) speech was played back, with parametric manipulation using four levels of pitch shift, crossed with four levels of onset delay. A nonmonotonic function was observed in early auditory responses when the onset delay was shorter than 100 msec: Suppression was observed for normal playback, but enhancement for pitch-shifted playback; however, the magnitude of enhancement decreased at the largest level of pitch shift that was out of pitch range for normal conversion, as suggested in two behavioral experiments. No difference was observed among different types of playback when the onset delay was longer than 100 msec. These results suggest that the prediction suppresses the response to normal feedback, which mediates source monitoring. When auditory feedback does not match the prediction, an "error term" is generated, which underlies deviance detection. We argue that, based on the observed nonmonotonic function, a frequency window (addressing spectral difference) and a time window (constraining temporal difference) jointly regulate the comparison between prediction and feedback in speech.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25061925      PMCID: PMC4465382          DOI: 10.1162/jocn_a_00692

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Cogn Neurosci        ISSN: 0898-929X            Impact factor:   3.225


  66 in total

1.  Central cancellation of self-produced tickle sensation.

Authors:  S J Blakemore; D M Wolpert; C D Frith
Journal:  Nat Neurosci       Date:  1998-11       Impact factor: 24.884

2.  A pathway in primate brain for internal monitoring of movements.

Authors:  Marc A Sommer; Robert H Wurtz
Journal:  Science       Date:  2002-05-24       Impact factor: 47.728

3.  Is the human primary motor cortex involved in motor imagery?

Authors:  Peter Dechent; Klaus-Dietmar Merboldt; Jens Frahm
Journal:  Brain Res Cogn Brain Res       Date:  2004-04

4.  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

5.  The effect of delayed side-tone upon vocal rate and intensity.

Authors:  J W BLACK
Journal:  J Speech Disord       Date:  1951-03

Review 6.  Variables affecting stutterer's initial reactions to delayed auditory feedback.

Authors:  B D Burke
Journal:  J Commun Disord       Date:  1975-06       Impact factor: 2.288

7.  Fluency effect of frequency alterations of plus/minus one-half and one-quarter octave shifts in auditory feedback of people who stutter.

Authors:  A Stuart; J Kalinowski; J Armson; R Stenstrom; K Jones
Journal:  J Speech Hear Res       Date:  1996-04

8.  Sensory-motor interaction in the primate auditory cortex during self-initiated vocalizations.

Authors:  Steven J Eliades; Xiaoqin Wang
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2002-12-11       Impact factor: 2.714

9.  Neural response phase tracks how listeners learn new acoustic representations.

Authors:  Huan Luo; Xing Tian; Kun Song; Ke Zhou; David Poeppel
Journal:  Curr Biol       Date:  2013-05-09       Impact factor: 10.834

10.  Speech target modulates speaking induced suppression in auditory cortex.

Authors:  Maria I Ventura; Srikantan S Nagarajan; John F Houde
Journal:  BMC Neurosci       Date:  2009-06-13       Impact factor: 3.288

View more
  24 in total

1.  The effects of stimulus complexity on the preattentive processing of self-generated and nonself voices: An ERP study.

Authors:  Tatiana Conde; Óscar F Gonçalves; Ana P Pinheiro
Journal:  Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci       Date:  2016-02       Impact factor: 3.282

2.  Studying auditory verbal hallucinations using the RDoC framework.

Authors:  Judith M Ford
Journal:  Psychophysiology       Date:  2016-03       Impact factor: 4.016

3.  Self-reported inner speech relates to phonological retrieval ability in people with aphasia.

Authors:  Mackenzie E Fama; Mary P Henderson; Sarah F Snider; William Hayward; Rhonda B Friedman; Peter E Turkeltaub
Journal:  Conscious Cogn       Date:  2019-03-25

Review 4.  Inner Speech in Aphasia: Current Evidence, Clinical Implications, and Future Directions.

Authors:  Mackenzie E Fama; Peter E Turkeltaub
Journal:  Am J Speech Lang Pathol       Date:  2019-09-13       Impact factor: 2.408

5.  Speakers are able to categorize vowels based on tongue somatosensation.

Authors:  Jean-François Patri; David J Ostry; Julien Diard; Jean-Luc Schwartz; Pamela Trudeau-Fisette; Christophe Savariaux; Pascal Perrier
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2020-03-02       Impact factor: 11.205

6.  The role of conflict, feedback, and action comprehension in monitoring of action errors: Evidence for internal and external routes.

Authors:  Cortney M Howard; Louisa L Smith; H Branch Coslett; Laurel J Buxbaum
Journal:  Cortex       Date:  2019-02-14       Impact factor: 4.027

7.  The Subjective Experience of Inner Speech in Aphasia Is a Meaningful Reflection of Lexical Retrieval.

Authors:  Mackenzie E Fama; Sarah F Snider; Mary P Henderson; William Hayward; Rhonda B Friedman; Peter E Turkeltaub
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2019-01-30       Impact factor: 2.297

8.  Masking auditory feedback does not eliminate repetition reduction.

Authors:  Cassandra L Jacobs; Torrey M Loucks; Duane G Watson; Gary S Dell
Journal:  Lang Cogn Neurosci       Date:  2019-11-21       Impact factor: 2.842

9.  Speaking rhythmically can shape hearing.

Authors:  M Florencia Assaneo; Johanna M Rimmele; Yonatan Sanz Perl; David Poeppel
Journal:  Nat Hum Behav       Date:  2020-10-12

10.  Mental imagery of speech implicates two mechanisms of perceptual reactivation.

Authors:  Xing Tian; Jean Mary Zarate; David Poeppel
Journal:  Cortex       Date:  2016-01-14       Impact factor: 4.027

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.