Defne Abur1, Austeja Subaciute2, Ayoub Daliri1,3, Rosemary A Lester-Smith1,4, Ashling A Lupiani1,5, Dante Cilento1, Nicole M Enos2,6, Hasini R Weerathunge2, Monique C Tardif1,7, Cara E Stepp1,2,8. 1. Department of Speech, Language & Hearing Sciences, Boston University, MA. 2. Department of Biomedical Engineering, Boston University, MA. 3. College of Health Solutions, Arizona State University, Tempe. 4. Department of Speech, Language, and Hearing Sciences, Moody College of Communication, The University of Texas at Austin. 5. Joint Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of North Carolina Chapel Hill and North Carolina State University, Raleigh. 6. Department of Electrical & Computer Engineering, Boston University, MA. 7. Department of Communication Science and Disorders, University of Pittsburgh, PA. 8. Department of Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery, Boston University School of Medicine, MA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Unexpected and sustained manipulations of auditory feedback during speech production result in "reflexive" and "adaptive" responses, which can shed light on feedback and feedforward auditory-motor control processes, respectively. Persons with Parkinson's disease (PwPD) have shown aberrant reflexive and adaptive responses, but responses appear to differ for control of vocal and articulatory features. However, these responses have not been examined for both voice and articulation in the same speakers and with respect to auditory acuity and functional speech outcomes (speech intelligibility and naturalness). METHOD: Here, 28 PwPD on their typical dopaminergic medication schedule and 28 age-, sex-, and hearing-matched controls completed tasks yielding reflexive and adaptive responses as well as auditory acuity for both vocal and articulatory features. RESULTS: No group differences were found for any measures of auditory-motor control, conflicting with prior findings in PwPD while off medication. Auditory-motor measures were also compared with listener ratings of speech function: first formant frequency acuity was related to speech intelligibility, whereas adaptive responses to vocal fundamental frequency manipulations were related to speech naturalness. CONCLUSIONS: These results support that auditory-motor processes for both voice and articulatory features are intact for PwPD receiving medication. This work is also the first to suggest associations between measures of auditory-motor control and speech intelligibility and naturalness.
PURPOSE: Unexpected and sustained manipulations of auditory feedback during speech production result in "reflexive" and "adaptive" responses, which can shed light on feedback and feedforward auditory-motor control processes, respectively. Persons with Parkinson's disease (PwPD) have shown aberrant reflexive and adaptive responses, but responses appear to differ for control of vocal and articulatory features. However, these responses have not been examined for both voice and articulation in the same speakers and with respect to auditory acuity and functional speech outcomes (speech intelligibility and naturalness). METHOD: Here, 28 PwPD on their typical dopaminergic medication schedule and 28 age-, sex-, and hearing-matched controls completed tasks yielding reflexive and adaptive responses as well as auditory acuity for both vocal and articulatory features. RESULTS: No group differences were found for any measures of auditory-motor control, conflicting with prior findings in PwPD while off medication. Auditory-motor measures were also compared with listener ratings of speech function: first formant frequency acuity was related to speech intelligibility, whereas adaptive responses to vocal fundamental frequency manipulations were related to speech naturalness. CONCLUSIONS: These results support that auditory-motor processes for both voice and articulatory features are intact for PwPD receiving medication. This work is also the first to suggest associations between measures of auditory-motor control and speech intelligibility and naturalness.
Authors: Gail B Kempster; Bruce R Gerratt; Katherine Verdolini Abbott; Julie Barkmeier-Kraemer; Robert E Hillman Journal: Am J Speech Lang Pathol Date: 2008-10-16 Impact factor: 2.408
Authors: Tanya L Eadie; Devon Otero; Steven Cox; Jordan Johnson; Carolyn R Baylor; Kathryn M Yorkston; Philip C Doyle Journal: Head Neck Date: 2015-12-29 Impact factor: 3.147
Authors: Glenn T Stebbins; Christopher G Goetz; David J Burn; Joseph Jankovic; Tien K Khoo; Barbara C Tilley Journal: Mov Disord Date: 2013-02-13 Impact factor: 10.338