Literature DB >> 29869027

Opposing and following responses in sensorimotor speech control: Why responses go both ways.

Matthias K Franken1,2,3, Daniel J Acheson4,5, James M McQueen5,6, Peter Hagoort4,5, Frank Eisner6.   

Abstract

When talking, speakers continuously monitor and use the auditory feedback of their own voice to control and inform speech production processes. When speakers are provided with auditory feedback that is perturbed in real time, most of them compensate for this by opposing the feedback perturbation. But some responses follow the perturbation. In the present study, we investigated whether the state of the speech production system at perturbation onset may determine what type of response (opposing or following) is made. The results suggest that whether a perturbation-related response is opposing or following depends on ongoing fluctuations of the production system: The system initially responds by doing the opposite of what it was doing. This effect and the nontrivial proportion of following responses suggest that current production models are inadequate: They need to account for why responses to unexpected sensory feedback depend on the production system's state at the time of perturbation.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Auditory feedback; Pitch; Speech perception; Speech production

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29869027     DOI: 10.3758/s13423-018-1494-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev        ISSN: 1069-9384


  14 in total

Review 1.  Computational principles of movement neuroscience.

Authors:  D M Wolpert; Z Ghahramani
Journal:  Nat Neurosci       Date:  2000-11       Impact factor: 24.884

2.  Instructing subjects to make a voluntary response reveals the presence of two components to the audio-vocal reflex.

Authors:  T C Hain; T A Burnett; S Kiran; C R Larson; S Singh; M K Kenney
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2000-01       Impact factor: 1.972

3.  Reduced gamma-band coherence to distorted feedback during speech when what you say is not what you hear.

Authors:  Judith M Ford; Max Gray; William O Faustman; Theda H Heinks; Daniel H Mathalon
Journal:  Int J Psychophysiol       Date:  2005-08       Impact factor: 2.997

4.  Nonparametric statistical testing of EEG- and MEG-data.

Authors:  Eric Maris; Robert Oostenveld
Journal:  J Neurosci Methods       Date:  2007-04-10       Impact factor: 2.390

5.  Effects of perturbation magnitude and voice F0 level on the pitch-shift reflex.

Authors:  Hanjun Liu; Charles R Larson
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2007-12       Impact factor: 1.840

6.  Voice F0 responses to manipulations in pitch feedback.

Authors:  T A Burnett; M B Freedland; C R Larson; T C Hain
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1998-06       Impact factor: 1.840

7.  Sensorimotor adaptation in speech production.

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

8.  Opposing and following vocal responses to pitch-shifted auditory feedback: evidence for different mechanisms of voice pitch control.

Authors:  Roozbeh Behroozmand; Oleg Korzyukov; Lindsey Sattler; Charles R Larson
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2012-10       Impact factor: 1.840

Review 9.  The dynamical hypothesis in cognitive science.

Authors:  T van Gelder
Journal:  Behav Brain Sci       Date:  1998-10       Impact factor: 12.579

10.  Speech production as state feedback control.

Authors:  John F Houde; Srikantan S Nagarajan
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2011-10-25       Impact factor: 3.169

View more
  7 in total

1.  Modulation of auditory-vocal feedback control due to planned changes in voice fo.

Authors:  Jason H Kim; Charles R Larson
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2019-03       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  Auditory and somatosensory feedback mechanisms of laryngeal and articulatory speech motor control.

Authors:  Hasini R Weerathunge; Tiffany Voon; Monique Tardif; Dante Cilento; Cara E Stepp
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2022-06-23       Impact factor: 2.064

3.  Pediatric Responses to Fundamental and Formant Frequency Altered Auditory Feedback: A Scoping Review.

Authors:  Caitlin Coughler; Keelia L Quinn de Launay; David W Purcell; Janis Oram Cardy; Deryk S Beal
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2022-05-17       Impact factor: 3.473

4.  Speaking to a common tune: Between-speaker convergence in voice fundamental frequency in a joint speech production task.

Authors:  Vincent Aubanel; Noël Nguyen
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-05-04       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Adaptation to pitch-altered feedback is independent of one's own voice pitch sensitivity.

Authors:  Razieh Alemi; Alexandre Lehmann; Mickael L D Deroche
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2020-10-08       Impact factor: 4.379

6.  It's About Time: Minimizing Hardware and Software Latencies in Speech Research With Real-Time Auditory Feedback.

Authors:  Kwang S Kim; Hantao Wang; Ludo Max
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2020-07-08       Impact factor: 2.297

7.  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

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.