Summary
Auditory feedback control of fundamental frequency (fo) is modulated in a task-dependent manner. When voice pitch auditory feedback perturbations
are applied in sentence versus sustained-vowel production, larger and faster vocal
fo responses are measured in sentence production. This task-dependency reflects the
scaling of auditory targets for pitch for the precision required in each speech task.
When the range for the pitch auditory target is scaled down for precision (as in the
sentence-production task), a greater degree of mismatch is detected from the feedback
perturbation and a larger vocal response is measured. The purpose of this study was
to determine whether auditory feedback control of vocal intensity is also modulated
in a task-dependent manner similar to the control of vocal pitch. Twenty-five English
speakers produced repetitions of a sentence and a sustained vowel while hearing their
voice auditory feedback briefly perturbed in loudness (+/- 3 or 6 dB SPL, 200 ms duration).
The resulting vocal intensity responses were measured, and response magnitudes were
robustly larger in the sentence (mean: 1.96 dB) than vowel production (mean: 0.89
dB). Additionally, response magnitudes increased as a function of perturbation magnitude
only in sentence production for downward perturbations but decreased in magnitude
by perturbation magnitude for upward perturbations. Peak response latencies were robustly
shorter in sentence (mean: 184.94 ms) than in vowel production (mean: 214.92 ms).
Overall, these results support the hypothesis that auditory feedback control of pitch
and loudness are modulated by task and that both pitch and loudness auditory targets
are scaled for the precision required for the speaking task.
Key words
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:
Subscribe to Journal of VoiceAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
REFERENCES
- Do talkativeness and vocal loudness correlate with laryngeal pathology? A study of the vocal overdoer/underdoer continuum.J Voice. 2016; 30: 557-562https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2015.06.012
- Differential diagnostic patterns of dysarthria.J Speech Hear Res. 1969; 12: 246-269
- Speech impairment in a large sample of patients with Parkinson's disease.Behav Neurol. 1999; 11: 131-137
- Voice F0 responses to manipulations in pitch feedback.J Acoust Soc Am. 1998; 103: 3153-3161
- The DIVA model: a neural theory of speech acquisition and production.Lang Cogn Process. 2011; 26: 952-981https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960903498424
- Neural Control of Speech.Mit Press, 2016
- Vocal responses to unanticipated perturbations in voice loudness feedback: an automatic mechanism for stabilizing voice amplitude.J Acoust Soc Am. 2006; 119: 2363-2371
- Compensatory responses to brief perturbations of speech amplitude.Acoust Res Lett Online. 2005; 6: 131-137https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1931747
- Compensatory responses to loudness-shifted voice feedback during production of Mandarin speech.J Acoust Soc Am. 2007; 122: 2405-2412
- Opposing and following vocal responses to pitch-shifted auditory feedback: evidence for different mechanisms of voice pitch control.J Acoust Soc Am. 2012; 132: 2468-2477
- Effects of perturbation magnitude and voice F 0 level on the pitch-shift reflex.J Acoust Soc Am. 2007; 122: 3671-3677https://doi.org/10.1121/1.2800254
- Voice F0 responses to pitch-shifted voice feedback during English speech.J Acoust Soc Am. 2007; 121: 1157-1163
- Control of voice fundamental frequency in speaking versus singing.J Acoust Soc Am. 2003; 113: 1587-1593https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1543928
- Economy of effort in different speaking conditions. I. A preliminary study of intersubject differences and modeling issues.J Acoust Soc Am. 2002; 112: 1627-1641https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1506369
- Economy of speech gestures.The Production of Speech. Springer, New York1983: 217-245https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4613-8202-7_10
- Explaining phonetic variation: a sketch of the H&H theory.Speech Production and Speech Modelling. Springer, Netherlands1990: 403-439https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-2037-8_16
- Prosodic adaptations to pitch perturbation in running speech.J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2011;
- Responses to intensity-shifted auditory feedback during running speech.J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2015; 58: 1687-1694
Association, A. S.-L.-H. (2005). Guidelines for manual pure-tone threshold audiometry.
- Audio-vocal responses to repetitive pitch-shift stimulation during a sustained vocalization: improvements in methodology for the pitch-shifting technique.J Acoust Soc Am. 2003; 114: 1048-1054
- The predictability of frequency-altered auditory feedback changes the weighting of feedback and feedforward input for speech motor control.Eur J Neurosci. 2014; 40: 3793-3806https://doi.org/10.1111/ejn.12734
- Speech intonation and focus location in matched statements and questions.J Acoust Soc Am. 1986; 80: 402-415https://doi.org/10.1121/1.394091
- Effects of electrical stimulation of cricothyroid and thyroarytenoid muscles on voice fundamental frequency.J Voice. 1988; 2: 221-229
- Changes in voice fundamental frequency following discharge of single motor units in cricothyroid and thyroarytenoid muscles.J Speech Lang Hear Res. 1987; 30: 552-558
- Comparative study of the physiological properties of the vocalis and cricothyroid muscles.Acta Oto-Laryngologica. 1988; 105: 372-378
- Instructing subjects to make a voluntary response reveals the presence of two components to the audio-vocal reflex.Exp Brain Res. 2000; 130: 133-141https://doi.org/10.1007/s002219900237
- Stan: a probabilistic programming language.Journal of Statistical Software. 2017; 76
- brms: an R package for Bayesian multilevel models using Stan.Journal of Statistical Software. 2017; 80: 1-28
- Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: keep it maximal.J Mem Lang. 2013; 68: 255-278https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JML.2012.11.001
- Indices of effect existence and significance in the Bayesian framework.Front Psychol. 2019; 0: 2767https://doi.org/10.3389/FPSYG.2019.02767
Behroozmand R, & Larson CR (2011). Error-dependent modulation of speech-induced auditory suppression for pitch-shifted voice feedback. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2202-12-54
- Sensory processing: advances in understanding structure and function of pitch-shifted auditory feedback in voice control.AIMS Neurosci. 2016; 3: 22-39https://doi.org/10.3934/Neuroscience.2016.1.22
- Effects of simultaneous perturbations of voice pitch and loudness feedback on voice F 0 and amplitude control.J Acoust Soc Am. 2007; 121: 2862-2872
- Modulation of auditory-vocal feedback control due to planned changes in voice fo.J Acoust Soc Am. 2019; 145: 1482-1492https://doi.org/10.1121/1.5094414
Article info
Publication history
Published online: October 07, 2022
Accepted:
August 2,
2022
Publication stage
In Press Corrected ProofIdentification
Copyright
© 2022 Published by Elsevier Inc. on behalf of The Voice Foundation.
