scholarly journals Auditory Feedback Control Mechanisms Do Not Contribute to Cortical Hyperactivity Within the Voice Production Network in Adductor Spasmodic Dysphonia

2020 ◽  
Vol 63 (2) ◽  
pp. 421-432 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ayoub Daliri ◽  
Elizabeth S. Heller Murray ◽  
Anne J. Blood ◽  
James Burns ◽  
J. Pieter Noordzij ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Feedback Control ◽  
Auditory Feedback ◽  
Brain Activity ◽  
Spasmodic Dysphonia ◽  
Control Mechanisms ◽  
Planum Temporale ◽  
Resting State Functional Connectivity ◽  
Adductor Spasmodic Dysphonia ◽  
Cortical Regions ◽  
Auditory Feedback Control

Purpose Adductor spasmodic dysphonia (ADSD), the most common form of spasmodic dysphonia, is a debilitating voice disorder characterized by hyperactivity and muscle spasms in the vocal folds during speech. Prior neuroimaging studies have noted excessive brain activity during speech in participants with ADSD compared to controls. Speech involves an auditory feedback control mechanism that generates motor commands aimed at eliminating disparities between desired and actual auditory signals. Thus, excessive neural activity in ADSD during speech may reflect, at least in part, increased engagement of the auditory feedback control mechanism as it attempts to correct vocal production errors detected through audition. Method To test this possibility, functional magnetic resonance imaging was used to identify differences between participants with ADSD ( n = 12) and age-matched controls ( n = 12) in (a) brain activity when producing speech under different auditory feedback conditions and (b) resting-state functional connectivity within the cortical network responsible for vocalization. Results As seen in prior studies, the ADSD group had significantly higher activity than the control group during speech with normal auditory feedback (compared to a silent baseline task) in three left-hemisphere cortical regions: ventral Rolandic (sensorimotor) cortex, anterior planum temporale, and posterior superior temporal gyrus/planum temporale. Importantly, this same pattern of hyperactivity was also found when auditory feedback control of speech was eliminated through masking noise. Furthermore, the ADSD group had significantly higher resting-state functional connectivity between sensorimotor and auditory cortical regions within the left hemisphere as well as between the left and right hemispheres. Conclusions Together, our results indicate that hyperactivation in the cortical speech network of individuals with ADSD does not result from hyperactive auditory feedback control mechanisms and rather is likely related to impairments in somatosensory feedback control and/or feedforward control mechanisms.

Event-related potential correlates of auditory feedback control of vocal production in experienced singers

Neuroreport ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 31 (4) ◽  
pp. 325-331
Author(s):  
Xiuqin Wu ◽  
Baofeng Zhang ◽  
Lirao Wei ◽  
Hanjun Liu ◽  
Peng Liu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Feedback Control ◽  
Auditory Feedback ◽  
Event Related Potential ◽  
Vocal Production ◽  
Auditory Feedback Control

scholarly journals Top–Down Inhibitory Mechanisms Underlying Auditory–Motor Integration for Voice Control: Evidence by TMS

2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (8) ◽  
pp. 4515-4527 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dongxu Liu ◽  
Guangyan Dai ◽  
Churong Liu ◽  
Zhiqiang Guo ◽  
Zhiqin Xu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Auditory Feedback ◽  
Brain Activity ◽  
Event Related Potential ◽  
Control Mechanisms ◽  
Top Down ◽  
Vocal Production ◽  
Left Dlpfc ◽  
Dorsolateral Prefrontal ◽  
Pitch Regulation ◽  
Condition C

Abstract The dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) has been implicated in auditory–motor integration for accurate control of vocal production, but its precise role in this feedback-based process remains largely unknown. To this end, the present event-related potential study applied a transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) protocol, continuous theta-burst stimulation (c-TBS), to disrupt cortical activity in the left DLPFC as young adults vocalized vowel sounds while hearing their voice unexpectedly shifted upwards in pitch. The results showed that, as compared to the sham condition, c-TBS over left DLPFC led to significantly larger vocal compensations for pitch perturbations that were accompanied by significantly smaller cortical P2 responses. Source localization analyses revealed that this brain activity pattern was the result of reduced activation in the left superior frontal gyrus and right inferior parietal lobule (supramarginal gyrus). These findings demonstrate c-TBS-induced modulatory effects of DLPFC on the neurobehavioral processing of vocal pitch regulation, suggesting that disrupting prefrontal function may impair top–down inhibitory control mechanisms that prevent speech production from being excessively influenced by auditory feedback, resulting in enhanced vocal compensations for feedback perturbations. This is the first study that provides direct evidence for a causal role of the left DLPFC in auditory feedback control of vocal production.

scholarly journals Contributions of Auditory and Somatosensory Feedback to Vocal Motor Control

2020 ◽  
Vol 63 (7) ◽  
pp. 2039-2053
Author(s):  
Dante J. Smith ◽  
Cara Stepp ◽  
Frank H. Guenther ◽  
Elaine Kearney
Keyword(s):  
Motor Control ◽  
Auditory Feedback ◽  
Native Speakers ◽  
Control Mechanisms ◽  
Auditory Masking ◽  
Somatosensory Feedback ◽  
Perturbation Experiment ◽  
Native Speakers Of English ◽  
Auditory Acuity ◽  
Auditory Feedback Control

Purpose To better define the contributions of somatosensory and auditory feedback in vocal motor control, a laryngeal perturbation experiment was conducted with and without masking of auditory feedback. Method Eighteen native speakers of English produced a sustained vowel while their larynx was physically and externally displaced on a subset of trials. For the condition with auditory masking, speech-shaped noise was played via earphones at 90 dB SPL. Responses to the laryngeal perturbation were compared to responses by the same participants to an auditory perturbation experiment that involved a 100-cent downward shift in fundamental frequency ( f o ). Responses were also examined in relation to a measure of auditory acuity. Results Compensatory responses to the laryngeal perturbation were observed with and without auditory masking. The level of compensation was greatest in the laryngeal perturbation condition without auditory masking, followed by the condition with auditory masking; the level of compensation was smallest in the auditory perturbation experiment. No relationship was found between the degree of compensation to auditory versus laryngeal perturbations, and the variation in responses in both perturbation experiments was not related to auditory acuity. Conclusions The findings indicate that somatosensory and auditory feedback control mechanisms work together to compensate for laryngeal perturbations, resulting in the greatest degree of compensation when both sources of feedback are available. In contrast, these two control mechanisms work in competition in response to auditory perturbations, resulting in an overall smaller degree of compensation. Supplemental Material https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.12559628

scholarly journals Effector-independent brain network for auditory-motor integration: fMRI evidence from singing and cello playing

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Melanie Segado ◽  
Robert J. Zatorre ◽  
Virginia B. Penhune
Keyword(s):  
Motor Control ◽  
Auditory Feedback ◽  
Brain Activity ◽  
Brain Networks ◽  
Anterior Cingulate ◽  
List Type ◽  
Control Mechanisms ◽  
Monitoring And Control ◽  
Pitch Regulation ◽  
The Brain

AbstractMany everyday tasks share high-level sensory goals but differ in the movements used to accomplish them. One example of this is musical pitch regulation, where the same notes can be produced using the vocal system or a musical instrument controlled by the hands. Cello playing has previously been shown to rely on brain structures within the singing network for performance of single notes, except in areas related to primary motor control, suggesting that the brain networks for auditory feedback processing and sensorimotor integration may be shared (Segado et al. 2018). However, research has shown that singers and cellists alike can continue singing/playing in tune even in the absence of auditory feedback (Chen et al. 2013, Kleber et al. 2013), so different paradigms are required to test feedback monitoring and control mechanisms. In singing, auditory pitch feedback perturbation paradigms have been used to show that singers engage a network of brain regions including anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), anterior insula (aINS), and intraparietal sulcus (IPS) when compensating for incorrect pitch feedback, and posterior superior temporal gyrus (pSTG) and supramarginal gyrus (SMG) when ignoring it (Zarate et al. 2005, 2008). To determine whether the brain networks for cello playing and singing directly overlap in these sensory-motor integration areas, in the present study expert cellists were asked to compensate for or ignore introduced pitch perturbations when singing/playing during fMRI scanning. We found that cellists were able to sing/play target tones, and compensate for and ignore introduced feedback perturbations equally well. Brain activity overlapped for singing and playing in IPS and SMG when compensating, and pSTG and dPMC when ignoring; differences between singing/playing across all three conditions were most prominent in M1, centered on the relevant motor effectors (hand, larynx). These findings support the hypothesis that pitch regulation during cello playing relies on structures within the singing network and suggests that differences arise primarily at the level of forward motor control.HighlightsExpert cellists were asked to compensate for or ignore introduced pitch perturbations when singing/playing during fMRI scanning.Cellists were able to sing/play target tones, and compensate for and ignore introduced feedback perturbations equally well.Brain activity overlapped for singing and playing in IPS and SMG when compensating, and pSTG and dPMC when ignoring.Differences between singing/playing across were most prominent in M1, centered around the relevant motor effectors (hand, larynx)Findings support the hypothesis that pitch regulation during cello playing relies on structures within the singing network with differences arising primarily at the level of forward motor control

Brain activity related to phonation in young patients with adductor spasmodic dysphonia

2014 ◽  
Vol 41 (3) ◽  
pp. 278-284 ◽  
Author(s):  
Asanori Kiyuna ◽  
Hiroyuki Maeda ◽  
Asano Higa ◽  
Kouta Shingaki ◽  
Takayuki Uehara ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Brain Activity ◽  
Young Patients ◽  
Spasmodic Dysphonia ◽  
Adductor Spasmodic Dysphonia

scholarly journals Neural mechanisms underlying auditory feedback control of speech

NeuroImage ◽  
2008 ◽  
Vol 39 (3) ◽  
pp. 1429-1443 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jason A. Tourville ◽  
Kevin J. Reilly ◽  
Frank H. Guenther
Keyword(s):  
Feedback Control ◽  
Auditory Feedback ◽  
Neural Mechanisms ◽  
Auditory Feedback Control
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document