Auditory feedback perturbation of vowel production: A comparative study of congenitally blind speakers and sighted speakers

2015 ◽  
Vol 137 (4) ◽  
pp. 2268-2268 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pamela Trudeau-Fisette ◽  
Marie Bellavance-Courtemanche ◽  
Thomas Granger ◽  
Lucile Rapin ◽  
Christine Turgeon ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Study ◽  
Auditory Feedback ◽  
Vowel Production ◽  
Congenitally Blind

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 Vowel generalization and its relation to adaptation during perturbations of auditory feedback

2017 ◽  
Vol 118 (5) ◽  
pp. 2925-2934 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kevin J. Reilly ◽  
Chelsea Pettibone
Keyword(s):  
Auditory Feedback ◽  
Noise Correlation ◽  
Vowel Production ◽  
Masking Noise ◽  
Sensorimotor Representations

Repeated perturbations of auditory feedback during vowel production elicit changes not only in the production of the perturbed vowel (adaptation) but also in the production of nearby vowels that were not perturbed (generalization). The finding that adaptation generalizes to other, nonperturbed vowels suggests that sensorimotor representations for vowels are not independent; instead, the goals for producing any one vowel may depend in part on the goals for other vowels. The present study investigated the dependence or independence of vowel representations by evaluating adaptation and generalization in two groups of speakers exposed to auditory perturbations of their first formant (F1) during different vowels. The speakers in both groups who adapted to the perturbation exhibited generalization in two nonperturbed vowels that were produced under masking noise. Correlation testing was performed to evaluate the relations between adaptation and generalization as well as between the generalization in the two nonperturbed vowels. These tests identified significant coupling between the F1 changes of adjacent vowels but not nonadjacent vowels. The pattern of correlation findings indicates that generalization was due in part to feedforward representations that are partly shared across adjacent vowels, possibly to maintain their acoustic contrast. NEW & NOTEWORTHY Speech adaptations to alterations, or perturbations, of auditory feedback have provided important insights into sensorimotor representations underlying speech. One finding from these studies that is yet to be accounted for is vowel generalization, which describes the effects of repeated perturbations to one vowel on the production of other vowels that were not perturbed. The present study used correlation testing to quantify the effects of changes in a perturbed vowel on neighboring (i.e., similar) nonperturbed vowels. The results identified significant correlations between the changes of adjacent, but not nonadjacent, vowel pairs. This finding suggests that generalization is partly a response to adaptation and not solely due to the auditory perturbation.

scholarly journals Intact Correction for Self-Produced Vowel Formant Variability in Individuals With Cerebellar Ataxia Regardless of Auditory Feedback Availability

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-14
Author(s):  
Benjamin Parrell ◽  
Richard B. Ivry ◽  
Srikantan S. Nagarajan ◽  
John F. Houde
Keyword(s):  
Feedback Control ◽  
Cerebellar Ataxia ◽  
Auditory Feedback ◽  
Cerebellar Degeneration ◽  
Vowel Production ◽  
Compensatory Response ◽  
Vowel Context ◽  
Somatosensory Feedback ◽  
Vowel Formant ◽  
Masking Noise

Purpose Individuals with cerebellar ataxia (CA) caused by cerebellar degeneration exhibit larger reactive compensatory responses to unexpected auditory feedback perturbations than neurobiologically typical speakers, suggesting they may rely more on feedback control during speech. We test this hypothesis by examining variability in unaltered speech. Previous studies of typical speakers have demonstrated a reduction in formant variability (centering) observed during the initial phase of vowel production from vowel onset to vowel midpoint. Centering is hypothesized to reflect feedback-based corrections for self-produced variability and thus may provide a behavioral assay of feedback control in unperturbed speech in the same manner as the compensatory response does for feedback perturbations. Method To comprehensively compare centering in individuals with CA and controls, we examine centering in two vowels (/i/ and /ɛ/) under two contexts (isolated words and connected speech). As a control, we examine speech produced both with and without noise to mask auditory feedback. Results Individuals with CA do not show increased centering compared to age-matched controls, regardless of vowel, context, or masking. Contrary to previous results in neurobiologically typical speakers, centering was not affected by the presence of masking noise in either group. Conclusions The similar magnitude of centering seen with and without masking noise questions whether centering is driven by auditory feedback. However, if centering is at least partially driven by auditory/somatosensory feedback, these results indicate that the larger compensatory response to altered auditory feedback observed in individuals with CA may not reflect typical motor control processes during normal, unaltered speech production.

Speech Intensity Response to Altered Intensity Feedback in Individuals With Parkinson's Disease

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-15
Author(s):  
Anita Senthinathan ◽  
Scott Adams ◽  
Allyson D. Page ◽  
Mandar Jog
Keyword(s):  
Parkinson’S Disease ◽  
Parkinson's Disease ◽  
Auditory Feedback ◽  
Background Noise ◽  
Sensory Information ◽  
Auditory Information ◽  
Conversational Speech ◽  
Vowel Production ◽  
Comfortable Loudness

Purpose Hypophonia (low speech intensity) is the most common speech symptom experienced by individuals with Parkinson's disease (IWPD). Previous research suggests that, in IWPD, there may be abnormal integration of sensory information for motor production of speech intensity. In the current study, intensity of auditory feedback was systematically manipulated (altered in both positive and negative directions) during sensorimotor conditions that are known to modulate speech intensity in everyday contexts in order to better understand the role of auditory feedback for speech intensity regulation. Method Twenty-six IWPD and 24 neurologically healthy controls were asked to complete the following tasks: converse with the experimenter, start vowel production, and read sentences at a comfortable loudness, while hearing their own speech intensity randomly altered. Altered intensity feedback conditions included 5-, 10-, and 15-dB reductions and increases in the feedback intensity. Speech tasks were completed in no noise and in background noise. Results IWPD displayed a reduced response to the altered intensity feedback compared to control participants. This reduced response was most apparent when participants were speaking in background noise. Specific task-based differences in responses were observed such that the reduced response by IWPD was most pronounced during the conversation task. Conclusions The current study suggests that IWPD have abnormal processing of auditory information for speech intensity regulation, and this disruption particularly impacts their ability to regulate speech intensity in the context of speech tasks with clear communicative goals (i.e., conversational speech) and speaking in background noise.

scholarly journals Feedforward and Feedback Control in Apraxia of Speech: Effects of Noise Masking on Vowel Production

2015 ◽  
Vol 58 (2) ◽  
pp. 185-200 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edwin Maas ◽  
Marja-Liisa Mailend ◽  
Frank H. Guenther
Keyword(s):  
Auditory Feedback ◽  
Feedback System ◽  
Apraxia Of Speech ◽  
Vowel Production ◽  
Noise Masking ◽  
Acoustic Measures ◽  
Masking Condition ◽  
Masking Noise ◽  
Vowel Contrast ◽  
Group Pattern

Purpose This study was designed to test two hypotheses about apraxia of speech (AOS) derived from the Directions Into Velocities of Articulators (DIVA) model (Guenther et al., 2006): the feedforward system deficit hypothesis and the feedback system deficit hypothesis. Method The authors used noise masking to minimize auditory feedback during speech. Six speakers with AOS and aphasia, 4 with aphasia without AOS, and 2 groups of speakers without impairment (younger and older adults) participated. Acoustic measures of vowel contrast, variability, and duration were analyzed. Results Younger, but not older, speakers without impairment showed significantly reduced vowel contrast with noise masking. Relative to older controls, the AOS group showed longer vowel durations overall (regardless of masking condition) and a greater reduction in vowel contrast under masking conditions. There were no significant differences in variability. Three of the 6 speakers with AOS demonstrated the group pattern. Speakers with aphasia without AOS did not differ from controls in contrast, duration, or variability. Conclusion The greater reduction in vowel contrast with masking noise for the AOS group is consistent with the feedforward system deficit hypothesis but not with the feedback system deficit hypothesis; however, effects were small and not present in all individual speakers with AOS. Theoretical implications and alternative interpretations of these findings are discussed.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document