Literature DB >> 32603626

Contributions of Auditory and Somatosensory Feedback to Vocal Motor Control.

Dante J Smith1, Cara Stepp1,2,3, Frank H Guenther1,2,3, Elaine Kearney2.   

Abstract

Purpose To better define the contributions of somatosensory and auditory feedback in vocal motor control, a laryngeal perturbation experiment was conducted with and without masking of auditory feedback. Method Eighteen native speakers of English produced a sustained vowel while their larynx was physically and externally displaced on a subset of trials. For the condition with auditory masking, speech-shaped noise was played via earphones at 90 dB SPL. Responses to the laryngeal perturbation were compared to responses by the same participants to an auditory perturbation experiment that involved a 100-cent downward shift in fundamental frequency (f o). Responses were also examined in relation to a measure of auditory acuity. Results Compensatory responses to the laryngeal perturbation were observed with and without auditory masking. The level of compensation was greatest in the laryngeal perturbation condition without auditory masking, followed by the condition with auditory masking; the level of compensation was smallest in the auditory perturbation experiment. No relationship was found between the degree of compensation to auditory versus laryngeal perturbations, and the variation in responses in both perturbation experiments was not related to auditory acuity. Conclusions The findings indicate that somatosensory and auditory feedback control mechanisms work together to compensate for laryngeal perturbations, resulting in the greatest degree of compensation when both sources of feedback are available. In contrast, these two control mechanisms work in competition in response to auditory perturbations, resulting in an overall smaller degree of compensation. Supplemental Material https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.12559628.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32603626      PMCID: PMC7838841          DOI: 10.1044/2020_JSLHR-19-00296

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


  30 in total

1.  Intersensory conflict between vision and touch: the response modality dominates when precise, attention-riveting judgments are required.

Authors:  M A Heller; J A Calcaterra; S L Green; L Brown
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  1999-10

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.  Effects of pitch-shift velocity on voice Fo responses.

Authors:  C R Larson; T A Burnett; S Kiran; T C Hain
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2000-01       Impact factor: 1.840

4.  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

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.  Audio-vocal responses to repetitive pitch-shift stimulation during a sustained vocalization: improvements in methodology for the pitch-shifting technique.

Authors:  Jay J Bauer; Charles R Larson
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2003-08       Impact factor: 1.840

7.  Compensation following real-time manipulation of formants in isolated vowels.

Authors:  David W Purcell; Kevin G Munhall
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2006-04       Impact factor: 1.840

8.  Sensory preference in speech production revealed by simultaneous alteration of auditory and somatosensory feedback.

Authors:  Daniel R Lametti; Sazzad M Nasir; David J Ostry
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2012-07-04       Impact factor: 6.167

9.  Online Adaptation to Altered Auditory Feedback Is Predicted by Auditory Acuity and Not by Domain-General Executive Control Resources.

Authors:  Clara D Martin; Caroline A Niziolek; Jon A Duñabeitia; Alejandro Perez; Doris Hernandez; Manuel Carreiras; John F Houde
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2018-03-12       Impact factor: 3.169

10.  Weak responses to auditory feedback perturbation during articulation in persons who stutter: evidence for abnormal auditory-motor transformation.

Authors:  Shanqing Cai; Deryk S Beal; Satrajit S Ghosh; Mark K Tiede; Frank H Guenther; Joseph S Perkell
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-07-23       Impact factor: 3.240

View more
  3 in total

1.  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

2.  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

3.  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

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.