scholarly journals A temporal predictive code for voice motor control: Evidence from ERP and behavioral responses to pitch-shifted auditory feedback

2016 ◽  
Vol 1636 ◽  
pp. 1-12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roozbeh Behroozmand ◽  
Stacey Sangtian ◽  
Oleg Korzyukov ◽  
Charles R. Larson
Keyword(s):  
Motor Control ◽  
Auditory Feedback ◽  
Behavioral Responses ◽  
Predictive Code

scholarly journals Consistency influences altered auditory feedback processing

2019 ◽  
Vol 72 (10) ◽  
pp. 2371-2379 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthias K Franken ◽  
Daniel J Acheson ◽  
James M McQueen ◽  
Peter Hagoort ◽  
Frank Eisner
Keyword(s):  
Motor Control ◽  
Speech Production ◽  
Auditory Feedback ◽  
Speech Motor Control ◽  
Short Term ◽  
Feedback Processing ◽  
Motor Commands ◽  
Consistent Condition ◽  
Consistency Effect ◽  
Speech Motor

Previous research on the effect of perturbed auditory feedback in speech production has focused on two types of responses. In the short term, speakers generate compensatory motor commands in response to unexpected perturbations. In the longer term, speakers adapt feedforward motor programmes in response to feedback perturbations, to avoid future errors. The current study investigated the relation between these two types of responses to altered auditory feedback. Specifically, it was hypothesised that consistency in previous feedback perturbations would influence whether speakers adapt their feedforward motor programmes. In an altered auditory feedback paradigm, formant perturbations were applied either across all trials (the consistent condition) or only to some trials, whereas the others remained unperturbed (the inconsistent condition). The results showed that speakers’ responses were affected by feedback consistency, with stronger speech changes in the consistent condition compared with the inconsistent condition. Current models of speech-motor control can explain this consistency effect. However, the data also suggest that compensation and adaptation are distinct processes, which are not in line with all current models.

scholarly journals Abnormal Speech Motor Control in Individuals with 16p11.2 Deletions

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carly Demopoulos ◽  
Hardik Kothare ◽  
Danielle Mizuiri ◽  
Jennifer Henderson-Sabes ◽  
Brieana Fregeau ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Motor Control ◽  
Auditory Feedback ◽  
Spectral Peak ◽  
Motor Deficits ◽  
Speech Motor Control ◽  
Sensorimotor Adaptation ◽  
Speech And Language ◽  
Vowel Production ◽  
Identity Changes ◽  
Speech Motor

AbstractSpeech and motor deficits are highly prevalent (>70%) in individuals with the 600 kb BP4-BP5 16p11.2 deletion; however, the mechanisms that drive these deficits are unclear, limiting our ability to target interventions and advance treatment. This study examined fundamental aspects of speech motor control in participants with the 16p11.2 deletion. To assess capacity for control of voice, we examined how accurately and quickly subjects changed the pitch of their voice within a trial to correct for a transient perturbation of the pitch of their auditory feedback. When compared to sibling controls, 16p11.2 deletion carriers show an over-exaggerated pitch compensation response to unpredictable mid-vocalization pitch perturbations. We also examined sensorimotor adaptation of speech by assessing how subjects learned to adapt their sustained productions of formants (speech spectral peak frequencies important for vowel identity), in response to consistent changes in their auditory feedback during vowel production. Deletion carriers show reduced sensorimotor adaptation to sustained vowel identity changes in auditory feedback. These results together suggest that 16p11.2 deletion carriers have fundamental impairments in the basic mechanisms of speech motor control and these impairments may partially explain the deficits in speech and language in these individuals.

scholarly journals Variations in glenohumeral movement control when implementing an auditory feedback system: A pilot study

2019 ◽  
Vol 67 (4) ◽  
pp. 477-483
Author(s):  
Mauricio Barramuño ◽  
Pablo Valdés-Badilla ◽  
Exequiel Guevara
Keyword(s):  
Young Adults ◽  
Motor Control ◽  
Auditory Feedback ◽  
Movement Control ◽  
Feedback System ◽  
Post Exposure ◽  
System A ◽  
Randomized Intervention ◽  
Execution Speed ◽  
Human Motor

Introduction: Human motor control requires a learning process and it can be trained by means of various sensory feedback sources.Objective: To determine variations in glenohumeral movement control by learning in young adults exposed to an auditory feedback system while they perform object translation tasks classified by difficulty level.Materials and methods: The study involved 45 volunteers of both sexes (22 women), aged between 18 and 32 years. Glenohumeral movement control was measured by means of the root mean square (RMS) of the accelerometry signal, while task execution speed (TES) was measured using an accelerometer during the execution of the task according to its difficulty (easy, moderate and hard) in four stages of randomized intervention (control, pre-exposure, exposure-with auditory feedback, and post-exposure).Results: Statistically significant differences (p<0.001) were found between the pre-exposure and exposure stages and between pre-exposure and post-exposure stages. A significant increase (p <0.001) in TES was identified between the pre-exposure and exposure stages for tasks classified as easy and hard, respectively.Conclusion: The use of an auditory feedback system in young adults without pathologies enhanced learning and glenohumeral movement control without reducing TES. This effect was maintained after the feedback, so the use of this type of feedback system in healthy individuals could result in a useful strategy for the training of motor control of the shoulder.

scholarly journals Contributions of Auditory and Somatosensory Feedback to Vocal Motor Control

2020 ◽  
Vol 63 (7) ◽  
pp. 2039-2053
Author(s):  
Dante J. Smith ◽  
Cara Stepp ◽  
Frank H. Guenther ◽  
Elaine Kearney
Keyword(s):  
Motor Control ◽  
Auditory Feedback ◽  
Native Speakers ◽  
Control Mechanisms ◽  
Auditory Masking ◽  
Somatosensory Feedback ◽  
Perturbation Experiment ◽  
Native Speakers Of English ◽  
Auditory Acuity ◽  
Auditory Feedback Control

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

scholarly journals Effector-independent brain network for auditory-motor integration: fMRI evidence from singing and cello playing

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Melanie Segado ◽  
Robert J. Zatorre ◽  
Virginia B. Penhune
Keyword(s):  
Motor Control ◽  
Auditory Feedback ◽  
Brain Activity ◽  
Brain Networks ◽  
Anterior Cingulate ◽  
List Type ◽  
Control Mechanisms ◽  
Monitoring And Control ◽  
Pitch Regulation ◽  
The Brain

AbstractMany everyday tasks share high-level sensory goals but differ in the movements used to accomplish them. One example of this is musical pitch regulation, where the same notes can be produced using the vocal system or a musical instrument controlled by the hands. Cello playing has previously been shown to rely on brain structures within the singing network for performance of single notes, except in areas related to primary motor control, suggesting that the brain networks for auditory feedback processing and sensorimotor integration may be shared (Segado et al. 2018). However, research has shown that singers and cellists alike can continue singing/playing in tune even in the absence of auditory feedback (Chen et al. 2013, Kleber et al. 2013), so different paradigms are required to test feedback monitoring and control mechanisms. In singing, auditory pitch feedback perturbation paradigms have been used to show that singers engage a network of brain regions including anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), anterior insula (aINS), and intraparietal sulcus (IPS) when compensating for incorrect pitch feedback, and posterior superior temporal gyrus (pSTG) and supramarginal gyrus (SMG) when ignoring it (Zarate et al. 2005, 2008). To determine whether the brain networks for cello playing and singing directly overlap in these sensory-motor integration areas, in the present study expert cellists were asked to compensate for or ignore introduced pitch perturbations when singing/playing during fMRI scanning. We found that cellists were able to sing/play target tones, and compensate for and ignore introduced feedback perturbations equally well. Brain activity overlapped for singing and playing in IPS and SMG when compensating, and pSTG and dPMC when ignoring; differences between singing/playing across all three conditions were most prominent in M1, centered on the relevant motor effectors (hand, larynx). These findings support the hypothesis that pitch regulation during cello playing relies on structures within the singing network and suggests that differences arise primarily at the level of forward motor control.HighlightsExpert cellists were asked to compensate for or ignore introduced pitch perturbations when singing/playing during fMRI scanning.Cellists were able to sing/play target tones, and compensate for and ignore introduced feedback perturbations equally well.Brain activity overlapped for singing and playing in IPS and SMG when compensating, and pSTG and dPMC when ignoring.Differences between singing/playing across were most prominent in M1, centered around the relevant motor effectors (hand, larynx)Findings support the hypothesis that pitch regulation during cello playing relies on structures within the singing network with differences arising primarily at the level of forward motor control

Oral vs. Manual Tapping with Delayed Auditory Feedback as Measures of Cerebral Dominance

1983 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 106-110 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeffrey L. Elman
Keyword(s):  
Motor Control ◽  
Motor Activity ◽  
Left Hemisphere ◽  
Auditory Stimulus ◽  
Auditory Feedback ◽  
Cerebral Dominance ◽  
Cerebral Asymmetry ◽  
Delayed Auditory Feedback ◽  
Cerebral Lateralization ◽  
Language Background

Two sets of findings have been reported which make contradictory claims about the cerebral lateralization of mechanisms for coordinating auditory feedback with motor control. One difficulty in evaluating the two sets of claims is that they result from experiments involving methodologies which are different enough to make direct comparisons difficult. The present study reports results of an experiment using a technique which partially bridges the gap between two of these paradigms. This technique involves examining the effect of delayed auditory feedback (DAF) on performance of both an oral and a manual tapping task. Ear of delivery of DAF, subject language background, and nature of the auditory stimulus were the experimental variables. The findings support the claim that the left hemisphere is differentially involved in the use of auditory feedback to control oral, but not manual, motor activity. No evidence was found to indicate that this functional cerebral asymmetry is stimulus- or language-dependent.

scholarly journals The Relation of Articulatory and Vocal Auditory–Motor Control in Typical Speakers

2020 ◽  
Vol 63 (11) ◽  
pp. 3628-3642
Author(s):  
Rosemary A. Lester-Smith ◽  
Ayoub Daliri ◽  
Nicole Enos ◽  
Defne Abur ◽  
Ashling A. Lupiani ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Motor Control ◽  
Auditory Feedback ◽  
Feedforward Control ◽  
Just Noticeable Difference ◽  
Control Mechanisms ◽  
Adaptive Responses ◽  
Passive Listening ◽  
Sudden Perturbation ◽  
Auditory Acuity ◽  
The Relationship

Purpose The purpose of this study was to explore the relationship between feedback and feedforward control of articulation and voice by measuring reflexive and adaptive responses to first formant ( F 1 ) and fundamental frequency ( f o ) perturbations. In addition, perception of F 1 and f o perturbation was estimated using passive (listening) and active (speaking) just noticeable difference paradigms to assess the relation of auditory acuity to reflexive and adaptive responses. Method Twenty healthy women produced single words and sustained vowels while the F 1 or f o of their auditory feedback was suddenly and unpredictably perturbed to assess reflexive responses or gradually and predictably perturbed to assess adaptive responses. Results Typical speakers' reflexive responses to sudden perturbation of F 1 were related to their adaptive responses to gradual perturbation of F 1 . Specifically, speakers with larger reflexive responses to sudden perturbation of F 1 had larger adaptive responses to gradual perturbation of F 1 . Furthermore, their reflexive responses to sudden perturbation of F 1 were associated with their passive auditory acuity to F 1 such that speakers with better auditory acuity to F 1 produced larger reflexive responses to sudden perturbations of F 1 . Typical speakers' adaptive responses to gradual perturbation of F 1 were not associated with their auditory acuity to F 1 . Speakers' reflexive and adaptive responses to perturbation of f o were not related, nor were their responses related to either measure of auditory acuity to f o . Conclusion These findings indicate that there may be disparate feedback and feedforward control mechanisms for articulatory and vocal error correction based on auditory feedback.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document