PURPOSE: Responses to intensity perturbation during running speech were measured to understand whether prosodic features are controlled in an independent or integrated manner. METHOD: Nineteen English-speaking healthy adults (age range = 21-41 years) produced 480 sentences in which emphatic stress was placed on either the 1st or 2nd word. One participant group received an upward intensity perturbation during stressed word production, and the other group received a downward intensity perturbation. Compensations for perturbation were evaluated by comparing differences in participants' stressed and unstressed peak fundamental frequency (F0), peak intensity, and word duration during perturbed versus baseline trials. RESULTS: Significant increases in stressed-unstressed peak intensities were observed during the ramp and perturbation phases of the experiment in the downward group only. Compensations for F0 and duration did not reach significance for either group. CONCLUSIONS: Consistent with previous work, speakers appear sensitive to auditory perturbations that affect a desired linguistic goal. In contrast to previous work on F0 perturbation that supported an integrated-channel model of prosodic control, the current work only found evidence for intensity-specific compensation. This discrepancy may suggest different F0 and intensity control mechanisms, threshold-dependent prosodic modulation, or a combined control scheme.
PURPOSE: Responses to intensity perturbation during running speech were measured to understand whether prosodic features are controlled in an independent or integrated manner. METHOD: Nineteen English-speaking healthy adults (age range = 21-41 years) produced 480 sentences in which emphatic stress was placed on either the 1st or 2nd word. One participant group received an upward intensity perturbation during stressed word production, and the other group received a downward intensity perturbation. Compensations for perturbation were evaluated by comparing differences in participants' stressed and unstressed peak fundamental frequency (F0), peak intensity, and word duration during perturbed versus baseline trials. RESULTS: Significant increases in stressed-unstressed peak intensities were observed during the ramp and perturbation phases of the experiment in the downward group only. Compensations for F0 and duration did not reach significance for either group. CONCLUSIONS: Consistent with previous work, speakers appear sensitive to auditory perturbations that affect a desired linguistic goal. In contrast to previous work on F0 perturbation that supported an integrated-channel model of prosodic control, the current work only found evidence for intensity-specific compensation. This discrepancy may suggest different F0 and intensity control mechanisms, threshold-dependent prosodic modulation, or a combined control scheme.