Advertisement

Task-Dependent Modulation of Auditory Feedback Control of Vocal Intensity

  • Allison I. Hilger
    Affiliations
    Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, 2240 Campus Drive, Evanston, IL 60208

    Department of Speech, Language, and Hearing Sciences, The University of Colorado Boulder, 2501 Kittredge Loop Dr, Boulder, CO 80305
    Search for articles by this author
  • Samuel Levant
    Affiliations
    Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, 2240 Campus Drive, Evanston, IL 60208

    Emory University School of Medicine, 100 Woodruff Circle, Atlanta, GA 30322
    Search for articles by this author
  • Jason H. Kim
    Affiliations
    Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, 2240 Campus Drive, Evanston, IL 60208
    Search for articles by this author
  • Rosemary A. Lester-Smith
    Affiliations
    Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, 2240 Campus Drive, Evanston, IL 60208

    Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, The University of Texas at Austin, 2504A Whitis Ave., Austin, TX 78712
    Search for articles by this author
  • Charles Larson
    Correspondence
    Address correspondence and reprint requests to Charles Larson, Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL 60201.
    Affiliations
    Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, 2240 Campus Drive, Evanston, IL 60208
    Search for articles by this author
Published:October 07, 2022DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2022.08.004

      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 access
      One-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 Voice
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      REFERENCES

        • Bastian RW
        • Thomas JP
        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
        • Darley FL
        • Aronson AE
        • Brown JR
        Differential diagnostic patterns of dysarthria.
        J Speech Hear Res. 1969; 12: 246-269
        • Ho AK
        • Iansek R
        • Marigliani C
        • et al.
        Speech impairment in a large sample of patients with Parkinson's disease.
        Behav Neurol. 1999; 11: 131-137
        • Burnett TA
        • Freedland MB
        • Larson CR
        • et al.
        Voice F0 responses to manipulations in pitch feedback.
        J Acoust Soc Am. 1998; 103: 3153-3161
        • Tourville JA
        • Guenther FH
        The DIVA model: a neural theory of speech acquisition and production.
        Lang Cogn Process. 2011; 26: 952-981https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960903498424
        • Guenther FH
        Neural Control of Speech.
        Mit Press, 2016
        • Bauer JJ
        • Mittal J
        • Larson CR
        • et al.
        Vocal responses to unanticipated perturbations in voice loudness feedback: an automatic mechanism for stabilizing voice amplitude.
        J Acoust Soc Am. 2006; 119: 2363-2371
        • Heinks-Maldonado TH
        • Houde JF
        Compensatory responses to brief perturbations of speech amplitude.
        Acoust Res Lett Online. 2005; 6: 131-137https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1931747
        • Liu H
        • Zhang Q
        • Xu Y
        • et al.
        Compensatory responses to loudness-shifted voice feedback during production of Mandarin speech.
        J Acoust Soc Am. 2007; 122: 2405-2412
        • Behroozmand R
        • Korzyukov O
        • Sattler L
        • et al.
        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
        • Liu H
        • Larson CR
        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
        • Chen SH
        • Liu H
        • Xu Y
        • et al.
        Voice F0 responses to pitch-shifted voice feedback during English speech.
        J Acoust Soc Am. 2007; 121: 1157-1163
        • Natke U
        • Donath TM
        • Kalveram KTh
        Control of voice fundamental frequency in speaking versus singing.
        J Acoust Soc Am. 2003; 113: 1587-1593https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1543928
        • Perkell JS
        • Zandipour M
        • Matthies ML
        • et al.
        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
        • Lindblom B
        Economy of speech gestures.
        The Production of Speech. Springer, New York1983: 217-245https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4613-8202-7_10
        • Lindblom B
        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
        • Patel R
        • Niziolek C
        • Reilly K
        • et al.
        Prosodic adaptations to pitch perturbation in running speech.
        J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2011;
        • Patel R
        • Reilly KJ
        • Archibald E
        • et al.
        Responses to intensity-shifted auditory feedback during running speech.
        J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2015; 58: 1687-1694
      1. Association, A. S.-L.-H. (2005). Guidelines for manual pure-tone threshold audiometry.

        • Bauer JJ
        • Larson CR
        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
        • Scheerer NE
        • Jones JA
        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
        • Eady SJ
        • Cooper WE
        Speech intonation and focus location in matched statements and questions.
        J Acoust Soc Am. 1986; 80: 402-415https://doi.org/10.1121/1.394091
        • Kempster GB
        • Larson CR
        • Kistler MK
        Effects of electrical stimulation of cricothyroid and thyroarytenoid muscles on voice fundamental frequency.
        J Voice. 1988; 2: 221-229
        • Larson CR
        • Kempster GB
        • Kistler MK
        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
        • Perlman AL
        • Alipour-Haghighi F
        Comparative study of the physiological properties of the vocalis and cricothyroid muscles.
        Acta Oto-Laryngologica. 1988; 105: 372-378
        • Hain TC
        • Burnett TA
        • Kiran S
        • et al.
        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
        • Carpenter B
        • Gelman A
        • Hoffman MD
        • et al.
        Stan: a probabilistic programming language.
        Journal of Statistical Software. 2017; 76
        • Bürkner P-C
        brms: an R package for Bayesian multilevel models using Stan.
        Journal of Statistical Software. 2017; 80: 1-28
        • Barr DJ
        • Levy R
        • Scheepers C
        • et al.
        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
        • Makowski D
        • Ben-Shachar MS
        • Chen SHA
        • et al.
        Indices of effect existence and significance in the Bayesian framework.
        Front Psychol. 2019; 0: 2767https://doi.org/10.3389/FPSYG.2019.02767
      2. 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

        • Larson CR
        • Robin DA
        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
        • Larson CR
        • Sun J
        • Hain TC
        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
        • Kim JH
        • Larson CR
        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