Perturbations of auditory feedback delay and the timing of movement.

Author(s):  
Alan M. Wing
2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Douglas M. Shiller ◽  
Takashi Mitsuya ◽  
Ludo Max

ABSTRACTPerceiving the sensory consequences of our actions with a delay alters the interpretation of these afferent signals and impacts motor learning. For reaching movements, delayed visual feedback of hand position reduces the rate and extent of visuomotor adaptation, but substantial adaptation still occurs. Moreover, the detrimental effect of visual feedback delay on reach motor learning—selectively affecting its implicit component—can be mitigated by prior habituation to the delay. Auditory-motor learning for speech has been reported to be more sensitive to feedback delay, and it remains unknown whether habituation to auditory delay reduces its negative impact on learning. We investigated whether 30 minutes of exposure to auditory delay during speaking (a) affects the subjective perception of delay, and (b) mitigates its disruptive effect on speech auditory-motor learning. During a speech adaptation task with real-time perturbation of vowel spectral properties, participants heard this frequency-shifted feedback with no delay, 75 ms delay, or 115 ms delay. In the delay groups, 50% of participants had been exposed to the delay throughout a preceding 30-minute block of speaking whereas the remaining participants completed this block without delay. Although habituation minimized awareness of the delay, no improvement in adaptation to the spectral perturbation was observed. Thus, short-term habituation to auditory feedback delays is not effective in reducing the negative impact of delay on speech auditory-motor adaptation. Combined with previous findings, the strong negative effect of delay and the absence of an influence of delay awareness suggest the involvement of predominantly implicit learning mechanisms in speech.HIGHLIGHTSSpeech auditory-motor adaptation to a spectral perturbation was reduced by ~50% when feedback was delayed by 75 or 115 ms.Thirty minutes of prior delay exposure without perturbation effectively reduced participants’ awareness of the delay.However, habituation was ineffective in remediating the detrimental effect of delay on speech auditory-motor adaptation.The dissociation of delay awareness and adaptation suggests that speech auditory-motor learning is mostly implicit.


1968 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. 861-868 ◽  
Author(s):  
John H. Saxman ◽  
Theodore D. Hanley

Twenty female subjects were required to select, by the method of fractionation, the delay interval judged by them to be one-half the duration of the standard delay interval with which it was paired. The signals judged were the delay intervals between the subjects' own production of the syllable /da/ and its return via delayed auditory feedback. Ten ascending and ten descending one-half judgments were obtained for each subject at each of tie standard delay intervals of 100, 200, 400, and 800 msec. The curves for the ascending, descending, and combined ascending-descending judgments, when plotted against delay intervals in physical time, were all nearly linear with a slight positively accelerated slope. A tentative scale of subjective delay time is described and its implications for evaluating the speech response to DAF as a function of time are noted.


2012 ◽  
Vol 25 (0) ◽  
pp. 48
Author(s):  
Koichi Toida ◽  
Kanako Ueno ◽  
Sotaro Shimada

Temporal contingency between self-body movement and its auditory feedback is crucial to perceive external auditory events. The present study examined whether delay detection of self-generated sound is modulated by short-term exposure of delayed auditory feedback. A total of 36 healthy students participated in Experiment 1 (, age 21.4 ± 1.3 years, mean ± SD) and 2 (, age 20.8 ± 1.4 years). In both experiments, the subject pressed a button with their right index finger and judged whether the auditory feedback (full-range pulsed sound) delivered through a headphone was delayed or not, compared to the sensation of the finger movement. Auditory feedback delay was inserted by using a sound effector device (SPX2000, YAMAHA, Japan). The durations of auditory feedback delay were ranged from 118 to 352 ms at 33.3 ms intervals in Experiment 1, and from 19 to 253 ms in Experiment 2. To calculate the point of subjective equality (PSE), where the delay detection rate was 50%, we have fitted a logistic function to the delay detection probability curve for each subject. The results showed that PSEs were 209.0 and 137.5 ms in Experiment 1 and 2, respectively, which were significantly different (, ). This indicates that PSE was modulated by the range of the delay used in the experiment; PSE became longer as the delay lengthened. We suppose that the perceptual delay in auditory feedback of self-body movement is automatically calibrated to the frequently exposed duration between self-body movement and the auditory feedback.


1968 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 595-599 ◽  
Author(s):  
John H. Saxman

Differential sensitivity to delay interval change (jnd) was assessed for six subjects at 12 standard delay times ranging from 30 msec to 360 msec. The speaker’s self-generated speech signal (/da/) and its return via delayed auditory feedback constituted the interval boundaries. Mean absolute jnd’s varied in magnitude from 15.45 msec to 19.66 msec and were found to be independent of the standard delay times. The relative sensitivity (ΔD/D) to delay change decreased rapidly at the shorter delay times, then leveled off to a fairly gradual slope beginning at approximately 150 msec.


2020 ◽  
Vol 32 (12) ◽  
pp. 2333-2341
Author(s):  
Liyu Cao ◽  
Wilfried Kunde ◽  
Barbara Haendel

Auditory feedback to a keypress is used in many devices to facilitate the motor output. The timing of auditory feedback is known to have an impact on the motor output, yet it is not known if a keypress action can be modulated on-line by an auditory feedback or how quick an auditory feedback can influence an ongoing keypress. Furthermore, it is not clear if the prediction of auditory feedback already changes the early phase of a keypress action independent of sensory feedback, which would suggest that such prediction changes the motor plan. In the current study, participants pressed a touch-sensitive device with auditory feedback in a self-paced manner. The auditory feedback was given either after a short (60 msec) or long (160 msec) delay, and the delay was either predictable or not. Our results showed that the keypress peak force was modulated by the amount of auditory feedback delay even when the delay was unpredictable, thus demonstrating an on-line modulation effect. The latency of the on-line modulation was suggested to be as low as 70 msec, indicating a very fast sensory to motor mapping circuit in the brain. When the auditory feedback delay was predictable, a change in the very early phase of keypress motor output was found, suggesting that the prediction of sensory feedback is crucial to motor control. Therefore, even a simple keypress action contains rich motor dynamics, which depend on expected as well as on-line perceived sensory feedback.


1964 ◽  
Vol 7 (4) ◽  
pp. 369-371
Author(s):  
Samuel Fillenbaum

Binaurally asynchronous delayed auditory feedback (DAF) was compared with synchronous DAF in 80 normal subjects. Asynchronous DAF (0.10 sec difference) did not yield results different from those obtained under synchronous DAF with a 0.20 sec delay interval, an interval characteristically resulting in maximum disruptions in speech.


1977 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 233-240 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sharon F. Garber ◽  
Richard R. Martin

The present study was designed to assess the effects of increased vocal level on stuttering in the presence and absence of noise, and to assess the effects of noise on stuttering with and without a concomitant increase in vocal level. Accordingly, eight adult stutterers spoke in quiet with normal vocal level, in quiet with increased vocal level, in noise with normal level, and in noise with increased level. All subjects reduced stuttering in noise compared with quiet conditions. However, there was no difference in stuttering when subjects spoke with normal compared with increased vocal level. In the present study, reductions in stuttering under noise could not be explained by increases in vocal level. It appears, instead, that reductions in stuttering were related to a decrease in auditory feedback. The condition which resulted in the largest decrease in auditory feedback, speaking in noise with a normal level, also resulted in the largest decrease in stuttering.


2009 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Q. Pfordresher ◽  
John D. Kulpa
Keyword(s):  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document