Abstract:Monitoring auditory feedback from hearing one's own voice is important for fluent speech production as it enables detection and correction of speech errors. The influence of auditory feedback is best illustrated by manipulating it during speech production. A common temporal manipulation technique, delaying auditory feedback (DAF), leads to disruptions in speech fluency, while a common spectral manipulation technique, perturbing the pitch of auditory feedback (PAF), results in vocal alterations. Previous research involving clinical populations has revealed diverse susceptibility profiles to auditory feedback manipulations, yet the extent of such diversity within the neurotypical population remains unclear. Furthermore, different types of manipulations elicit distinct speech errors (i.e. fluency/coordination versus acoustic errors), which may be processed by distinct error correction mechanisms. It is yet to be understood whether individuals affected by one manipulation are similarly impacted by the other. Lastly, based on evidence from clinical studies, which demonstrated that visual feedback can improve impaired speech production, it is an open question whether visual feedback can alleviate the disruptive effects of altered auditory feedback. We recorded voice samples from 40 neurotypical participants during both a DAF and a PAF task. DAF significantly prolonged articulation duration and increased voice pitch and intensity. In some trials, participants received immediate visual feedback, however visual feedback did not alleviate but rather strengthened the disruptive effects of DAF. During the PAF task, participants adjusted their voice pitch in the opposite direction of the perturbation in majority of the trials to compensate for the perturbation. We assessed susceptibility of the participants to the effects of DAF and PAF by examining articulation duration and compensatory vocal response magnitude, respectively. Susceptibility varied widely among participants for both manipulations, but individuals susceptible to one manipulation did not consistently exhibit susceptibility to the other, indicating distinct processing mechanisms for these different types of auditory feedback manipulations.

How to estimate the coupling Q factor from two-port 5-parameters

Divided Attention Has Limited Effects on Speech Sensorimotor Control

Susceptibility to auditory feedback manipulations and individual variability

Compensation for coarticulation despite a midway speaker change: Reassessing effects and implications

The Accompanying Effect in Responses to Auditory Perturbations: Unconscious Vocal Adjustments to Unperturbed Parameters

PET imaging of recurrent and metastatic prostate cancer with novel tracers.

Increased vowel contrast and intelligibility in connected speech induced by sensorimotor adaptation

Factors influencing the minimum audible change in talker head orientation cues using diotic stimuli

Speech formant changes due to repeated measurements, instruction, and simulated environments using both automated and manual feature extraction

Linking Cortical Morphology to Interindividual Variability in Auditory Feedback Control of Vocal Production

Sensorimotor adaptation to a nonuniform formant perturbation generalizes to untrained vowels

Interaction of long-term acoustic experience and local context information on the perceptual accommodation of talker variability

Top-down Vocal Feedback Control in Active Hearing.

Quick speech motor correction in the absence of auditory feedback

Using altered auditory feedback to study pitch compensation and adaptation in tonal language speakers

Effects of attentional instructions on the behavioral and neural mechanisms of speech auditory feedback control

Perceptual compensation for vowel intrinsic f0 effects in native English speakers

Controlling Pitch for Prosody: Sensorimotor Adaptation in Linguistically Meaningful Contexts

Opportunity Initiated Systems Design

Perceptual Compensation Is Correlated with Individuals' “Autistic” Traits: Implications for Models of Sound Change

Audiomotor prediction errors drive speech adaptation even in the absence of overt movement