Literature DB >> 33705674

Responses to Auditory Feedback Manipulations in Speech May Be Affected by Previous Exposure to Auditory Errors.

Caroline A Niziolek1, Benjamin Parrell1.   

Abstract

Purpose Speakers use auditory feedback to guide their speech output, although individuals differ in the magnitude of their compensatory response to perceived errors in feedback. Little is known about the factors that contribute to the compensatory response or how fixed or flexible they are within an individual. Here, we test whether manipulating the perceived reliability of auditory feedback modulates speakers' compensation to auditory perturbations, as predicted by optimal models of sensorimotor control. Method Forty participants produced monosyllabic words in two separate sessions, which differed in the auditory feedback given during an initial exposure phase. In the veridical session exposure phase, feedback was normal. In the noisy session exposure phase, small, random formant perturbations were applied, reducing reliability of auditory feedback. In each session, a subsequent test phase introduced larger unpredictable formant perturbations. We assessed whether the magnitude of within-trial compensation for these larger perturbations differed across the two sessions. Results Compensatory responses to downward (though not upward) formant perturbations were larger in the veridical session than the noisy session. However, in post hoc testing, we found the magnitude of this effect is highly dependent on the choice of analysis procedures. Compensation magnitude was not predicted by other production measures, such as formant variability, and was not reliably correlated across sessions. Conclusions Our results, though mixed, provide tentative support that the feedback control system monitors the reliability of sensory feedback. These results must be interpreted cautiously given the potentially limited stability of auditory feedback compensation measures across analysis choices and across sessions. Supplemental Material https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.14167136.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 33705674      PMCID: PMC8740748          DOI: 10.1044/2020_JSLHR-20-00263

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


  40 in total

1.  Partial compensation for altered auditory feedback: a tradeoff with somatosensory feedback?

Authors:  Shira Katseff; John Houde; Keith Johnson
Journal:  Lang Speech       Date:  2012-06       Impact factor: 1.500

2.  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

3.  A memory of errors in sensorimotor learning.

Authors:  David J Herzfeld; Pavan A Vaswani; Mollie K Marko; Reza Shadmehr
Journal:  Science       Date:  2014-08-14       Impact factor: 47.728

4.  Modulation of vocal pitch control through high-definition transcranial direct current stimulation of the left ventral motor cortex.

Authors:  Roozbeh Behroozmand; Karim Johari; Keiko Bridwell; Caroline Hayden; Danielle Fahey; Dirk-Bart den Ouden
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2020-05-23       Impact factor: 1.972

5.  Acoustic characteristics of American English vowels.

Authors:  J Hillenbrand; L A Getty; M J Clark; K Wheeler
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1995-05       Impact factor: 1.840

6.  Divided attention impairs human motor adaptation but not feedback control.

Authors:  Jordan A Taylor; Kurt A Thoroughman
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2007-04-25       Impact factor: 2.714

7.  Assessing speech correction abilities with acoustic analyses: Evidence of preserved online correction in persons with aphasia.

Authors:  Caroline A Niziolek; Swathi Kiran
Journal:  Int J Speech Lang Pathol       Date:  2018-10-22       Impact factor: 2.484

8.  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

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.  Auditory-Motor Control of Vocal Production during Divided Attention: Behavioral and ERP Correlates.

Authors:  Ying Liu; Hao Fan; Jingting Li; Jeffery A Jones; Peng Liu; Baofeng Zhang; Hanjun Liu
Journal:  Front Neurosci       Date:  2018-02-27       Impact factor: 4.677

View more
  3 in total

1.  Drifting pitch awareness after exposure to altered auditory feedback.

Authors:  Matthias K Franken; Robert J Hartsuiker; Petter Johansson; Lars Hall; Andreas Lind
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2022-01-27       Impact factor: 2.157

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.  A single exposure to altered auditory feedback causes observable sensorimotor adaptation in speech.

Authors:  Lana Hantzsch; Benjamin Parrell; Caroline A Niziolek
Journal:  Elife       Date:  2022-07-11       Impact factor: 8.713

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.