Impairment of Speech Auditory Feedback Error Detection and Motor Correction in Post-Stroke Aphasia

Author(s):  
Stacey Sangtian ◽  
Yuan Wang ◽  
Julius Fridriksson ◽  
Roozbeh Behroozmand
Author(s):  
Yuzhi Wan ◽  
Julie C. Prinet ◽  
Nadine Sarter

Touchscreens are being introduced to various mobile environments that are, at times, affected by vibrations and turbulence, such as modern car cockpits or flight decks of commercial and military aircraft. To assess and enhance the usability of touchscreens in these domains, this experiment examined the performance effects of turbulence on two flight-related tasks and the effectiveness of visual and auditory feedback for supporting error detection, fast completion times and multitasking. Nineteen pilots performed a flight plan entry and a checklist task in calm and turbulent conditions during manual flight and on autopilot. Results show that unaided performance suffers greatly in turbulence, both in terms of the number of errors and completion time. However, visual and auditory feedback both helped reduce these performance costs by improving error detection and multitasking. Participants preferred auditory feedback for text entry during manual flight and in turbulence. The findings from this study can inform the design and evaluation of touch screens for mobile environments, such as the flight deck, ambulances and surveillance operations.


2015 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 352-364 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xing Tian ◽  
David Poeppel

A critical subroutine of self-monitoring during speech production is to detect any deviance between expected and actual auditory feedback. Here we investigated the associated neural dynamics using MEG recording in mental-imagery-of-speech paradigms. Participants covertly articulated the vowel /a/; their own (individually recorded) speech was played back, with parametric manipulation using four levels of pitch shift, crossed with four levels of onset delay. A nonmonotonic function was observed in early auditory responses when the onset delay was shorter than 100 msec: Suppression was observed for normal playback, but enhancement for pitch-shifted playback; however, the magnitude of enhancement decreased at the largest level of pitch shift that was out of pitch range for normal conversion, as suggested in two behavioral experiments. No difference was observed among different types of playback when the onset delay was longer than 100 msec. These results suggest that the prediction suppresses the response to normal feedback, which mediates source monitoring. When auditory feedback does not match the prediction, an “error term” is generated, which underlies deviance detection. We argue that, based on the observed nonmonotonic function, a frequency window (addressing spectral difference) and a time window (constraining temporal difference) jointly regulate the comparison between prediction and feedback in speech.


2017 ◽  
Vol 142 (2) ◽  
pp. 838-845 ◽  
Author(s):  
Agnès Alsius ◽  
Takashi Mitsuya ◽  
Nida Latif ◽  
Kevin G. Munhall

2011 ◽  
Vol 23 (5) ◽  
pp. 1205-1217 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roozbeh Behroozmand ◽  
Hanjun Liu ◽  
Charles R. Larson

The neural responses to sensory consequences of a self-produced motor act are suppressed compared with those in response to a similar but externally generated stimulus. Previous studies in the somatosensory and auditory systems have shown that the motor-induced suppression of the sensory mechanisms is sensitive to delays between the motor act and the onset of the stimulus. The present study investigated time-dependent neural processing of auditory feedback in response to self-produced vocalizations. ERPs were recorded in response to normal and pitch-shifted voice auditory feedback during active vocalization and passive listening to the playback of the same vocalizations. The pitch-shifted stimulus was delivered to the subjects' auditory feedback after a randomly chosen time delay between the vocal onset and the stimulus presentation. Results showed that the neural responses to delayed feedback perturbations were significantly larger than those in response to the pitch-shifted stimulus occurring at vocal onset. Active vocalization was shown to enhance neural responsiveness to feedback alterations only for nonzero delays compared with passive listening to the playback. These findings indicated that the neural mechanisms of auditory feedback processing are sensitive to timing between the vocal motor commands and the incoming auditory feedback. Time-dependent neural processing of auditory feedback may be an important feature of the audio-vocal integration system that helps to improve the feedback-based monitoring and control of voice structure through vocal error detection and correction.


1992 ◽  
Vol 35 (5) ◽  
pp. 1024-1032 ◽  
Author(s):  
Albert Postma ◽  
Herman Kolk

Several theories purport that people who stutter suffer a speech-auditory feedback defect. The disordered feedback creates the illusion that some kind of error has intruded into the speech flow. Stuttering then results from actions aimed to correct the suspected, but nonexistent, error. These auditory feedback defect theories thus predict deviant error detection performance in people who stutter during speech production. To test this prediction, subjects who stuttered and those who did not had to detect self-produced (phonemic) speech errors while speaking with normal auditory feedback and with the auditory feedback masked by white noise. The two groups did not differ significantly in error detection accuracy and speed, nor in false alarm scores. This opposes auditory feedback defect theories and suggests that the self-monitoring processes of people who stutter function normally. In a condition in which errors had to be detected in other-produced speech, i.e., while listening to a tape recording, subjects who stuttered did detect fewer errors. Whether this might signal some general phonological problem is discussed.


2017 ◽  
Vol 04 (05) ◽  
Author(s):  
Andre Branquinho ◽  
Virgilio Bento Bento ◽  
Andre Nogueira ◽  
Catia Candeias ◽  
Fernando Dias Correia ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 88 ◽  
pp. 106034
Author(s):  
Lorelei Phillip Johnson ◽  
Stacey Sangtian ◽  
Karim Johari ◽  
Roozbeh Behroozmand ◽  
Julius Fridriksson

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document