Literature DB >> 35992578

Masking auditory feedback does not eliminate repetition reduction.

Cassandra L Jacobs1, Torrey M Loucks2, Duane G Watson3, Gary S Dell4.   

Abstract

Repetition reduces word duration. Explanations of this process have appealed to audience design, internal production mechanisms, and combinations thereof (e.g. Kahn & Arnold, 2015). Jacobs, Yiu, Watson, and Dell (2015) proposed the auditory feedback hypothesis, which states that speakers must hear a word, produced either by themselves or another speaker, in order for duration reduction on a subsequent production. We conducted a strong test of the auditory feedback hypothesis in two experiments, in which we used masked auditory feedback and whispering to prevent speakers from hearing themselves fully. Both experiments showed that despite limiting the sources of normal auditory feedback, repetition reduction was observed to equal extents in masked and unmasked conditions, suggesting that repetition reduction may be supported by multiple sources, such as somatosensory feedback and feedforward signals, depending on their availability.

Entities:  

Keywords:  auditory feedback; feedforward processes; language production; repetition reduction

Year:  2019        PMID: 35992578      PMCID: PMC9390968          DOI: 10.1080/23273798.2019.1693051

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Lang Cogn Neurosci        ISSN: 2327-3798            Impact factor:   2.842


  42 in total

1.  Movement goals and feedback and feedforward control mechanisms in speech production.

Authors:  Joseph S Perkell
Journal:  J Neurolinguistics       Date:  2010-03-26       Impact factor: 1.710

2.  Somatosensory basis of speech production.

Authors:  Stéphanie Tremblay; Douglas M Shiller; David J Ostry
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2003-06-19       Impact factor: 49.962

3.  Delayed auditory feedback.

Authors:  A J YATES
Journal:  Psychol Bull       Date:  1963-05       Impact factor: 17.737

4.  Effects of delayed auditory feedback upon articulation.

Authors:  G FAIRBANKS; N GUTTMAN
Journal:  J Speech Hear Res       Date:  1958-03

Review 5.  Computational neuroanatomy of speech production.

Authors:  Gregory Hickok
Journal:  Nat Rev Neurosci       Date:  2012-01-05       Impact factor: 34.870

6.  Audience design affects acoustic reduction via production facilitation.

Authors:  Jennifer E Arnold; Jason M Kahn; Giulia C Pancani
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2012-06

7.  Dynamics of self-monitoring and error detection in speech production: evidence from mental imagery and MEG.

Authors:  Xing Tian; David Poeppel
Journal:  J Cogn Neurosci       Date:  2015-02       Impact factor: 3.225

8.  Differential shortening of repeated content words produced in various communicative contexts.

Authors:  C A Fowler
Journal:  Lang Speech       Date:  1988 Oct-Dec       Impact factor: 1.500

9.  Obligatory Broca's area modulation associated with passive speech perception.

Authors:  Travis H Turner; Julius Fridriksson; Julie Baker; David Eoute; Leonardo Bonilha; Christopher Rorden
Journal:  Neuroreport       Date:  2009-03-25       Impact factor: 1.837

10.  The (in)dependence of articulation and lexical planning during isolated word production.

Authors:  Esteban Buz; T Florian Jaeger
Journal:  Lang Cogn Neurosci       Date:  2015-11-23       Impact factor: 2.331

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.