scholarly journals Speech auditory-motor adaptation lacks an explicit component: reduced adaptation in adults who stutter reflects limitations in implicit sensorimotor learning

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kwang S. Kim ◽  
Ludo Max
Keyword(s):  
Motor Learning ◽  
Implicit Learning ◽  
Auditory Feedback ◽  
Large Body ◽  
Motor Adaptation ◽  
Auditory Target ◽  
Sensorimotor Learning ◽  
Adults Who Stutter ◽  
Feedback Modalities ◽  
Sensory Prediction

AbstractThe neural mechanisms underlying stuttering remain poorly understood. A large body of work has focused on sensorimotor integration difficulties in individuals who stutter, including recently the capacity for sensorimotor learning. Typically, sensorimotor learning is assessed with adaptation paradigms in which one or more sensory feedback modalities are experimentally perturbed in real-time. Our own previous work on speech with perturbed auditory feedback revealed substantial auditory-motor learning limitations in both children and adults who stutter (AWS). It remains unknown, however, which sub-processes of sensorimotor learning are impaired. Indeed, new insights from research on upper-limb motor control indicate that sensorimotor learning involves at least two distinct components: (a) an explicit component that includes intentional strategy use and presumably is driven by target error, and (b) an implicit component that updates an internal model without awareness of the learner and presumably is driven by sensory prediction error. Here, we attempted to dissociate these components for speech auditory-motor learning in AWS vs. adults who do not stutter (AWNS). Our formant-shift auditory-motor adaptation results replicated previous findings that such sensorimotor learning is limited in AWS. Novel findings are that neither control nor stuttering participants reported any awareness of changing their productions in response to the auditory perturbation, and that neither group showed systematic drift in auditory target judgments made throughout the adaptation task. These results indicate that speech auditory-motor adaptation relies exclusively on implicit learning processes. Thus, limited adaptation in AWS reflects poor implicit sensorimotor learning. Keywords: stuttering, adaptation, auditory feedback, sensorimotor learning, implicit learning Speech auditory-motor adaptation lacks an explicit component: reduced adaptation in adults who stutter reflects limitations in implicit sensorimotor learning

scholarly journals Exposure to auditory feedback delay while speaking induces perceptual habituation but does not mitigate the disruptive effect of delay on speech auditory-motor learning

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Douglas M. Shiller ◽  
Takashi Mitsuya ◽  
Ludo Max
Keyword(s):  
Motor Learning ◽  
Visual Feedback ◽  
Auditory Feedback ◽  
Detrimental Effect ◽  
Negative Impact ◽  
Motor Adaptation ◽  
List Type ◽  
Disruptive Effect ◽  
Feedback Delay ◽  
Spectral Perturbation

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.

Sensorimotor knowledge from task-irrelevant feedback contributes to motor learning

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wanying Jiang ◽  
Yajie Liu ◽  
Yuqing Bi ◽  
Kunlin Wei
Keyword(s):  
Motor Learning ◽  
Perceptual Learning ◽  
Implicit Learning ◽  
Motor Adaptation ◽  
Strategic Learning ◽  
Visuomotor Rotation ◽  
Saving Effect ◽  
Sensorimotor Knowledge ◽  
Sensory Processes ◽  
Task Irrelevant

Exposure to task-irrelevant feedback leads to perceptual learning, but its effect on motor learning has been understudied. Here we asked human participants to reach a visual target with a hand-controlled cursor while observing another cursor moving independently in a different direction. While the task-irrelevant feedback did not change the main task's performance, it elicited robust savings in subsequent adaptation to classical visuomotor rotation perturbation. We demonstrated that the saving effect resulted from a faster formation of strategic learning through a series of experiments, not from gains in the implicit learning process. Furthermore, the saving effect was robust against drastic changes in stimulus features (i.e., rotation size or direction) or task types (i.e., for motor adaptation and skill learning). However, the effect was absent when the task-irrelevant feedback did not carry the visuomotor relationship embedded in visuomotor rotation. Thus, though previous research on perceptual learning has related task-irrelevant feedback to changes in early sensory processes, our findings support its role in acquiring abstract sensorimotor knowledge during motor learning. Motor learning studies have traditionally focused on task-relevant feedback, but our study extends the scope of feedback processes and sheds new light on the dichotomy of explicit and implicit learning in motor adaptation as well as motor structure learning.

Precise feedback control underlies sensorimotor learning in speech

2015 ◽  
Vol 113 (3) ◽  
pp. 950-955 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chris Vaughn ◽  
Sazzad M. Nasir
Keyword(s):  
Feedback Control ◽  
Motor Learning ◽  
Auditory Feedback ◽  
Sensorimotor Learning ◽  
Learning Paradigm ◽  
Current Feedback ◽  
Auditory Speech ◽  
Speech Motor Learning ◽  
Speech Motor

Acquiring the skill of speaking in another language, or for that matter a child's learning to talk, does not follow a single recipe. People learn by variable amounts. A major component of speech learnability seems to be sensing precise feedback errors to correct subsequent utterances that help maintain speech goals. We have tested this idea in a speech motor learning paradigm under altered auditory feedback, in which subjects repeated a word while their auditory feedback was changed online. Subjects learned the task to variable degrees, with some simply failing to learn. We assessed feedback contribution by computing one-lag covariance between formant trajectories of the current feedback and the following utterance that was found to be a significant predictor of learning. Our findings rely on a novel use of information-rich formant trajectories in evaluating speech motor learning and argue for their relevance in auditory speech goals of vowel sounds.

scholarly journals Dissociated development of speech and limb sensorimotor learning in stuttering: speech auditory-motor learning is impaired in both children and adults who stutter

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kwang S. Kim ◽  
Ayoub Daliri ◽  
John Randall Flanagan ◽  
Ludo Max
Keyword(s):  
Motor Learning ◽  
Neurodevelopmental Disorder ◽  
Visuomotor Adaptation ◽  
Sensorimotor Learning ◽  
Typically Developing ◽  
Older Children ◽  
Visuomotor Learning ◽  
Report Data ◽  
Adults Who Stutter ◽  
Reach Movements

Stuttering is a neurodevelopmental disorder of speech fluency. Various experimental paradigms have demonstrated that affected individuals show limitations in sensorimotor control and learning. However, controversy exists regarding two core aspects of this perspective. First, it has been claimed that sensorimotor learning limitations are detectable only in adults who stutter (after years of coping with the disorder) but not during childhood close to the onset of stuttering. Second, it remains unclear whether stuttering individuals' sensorimotor learning limitations affect only speech movements or also unrelated effector systems involved in nonspeech movements. We report data from separate experiments investigating speech auditory-motor learning (N = 60) and limb visuomotor learning (N = 84) in both children and adults who stutter versus matched nonstuttering individuals. Both children and adults who stutter showed statistically significant limitations in speech auditory-motor adaptation with formant-shifted feedback. This limitation was more profound in children than in adults and in younger children versus older children. Between-group differences in the adaptation of reach movements performed with rotated visual feedback were subtle but statistically significant for adults. In children, even the nonstuttering groups showed limited visuomotor adaptation just like their stuttering peers. We conclude that sensorimotor learning is impaired in individuals who stutter, and that the ability for speech auditory-motor learning -- which was already adult-like in 3-6 year-old typically developing children -- is severely compromised in young children near the onset of stuttering. Thus, motor learning limitations may play an important role in the fundamental mechanisms contributing to the onset of this speech disorder.

scholarly journals Limited Pre-Speech Auditory Modulation in Individuals Who Stutter: Data and Hypotheses

2019 ◽  
Vol 62 (8S) ◽  
pp. 3071-3084 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ludo Max ◽  
Ayoub Daliri
Keyword(s):  
Auditory Feedback ◽  
Auditory Processing ◽  
Auditory Evoked Potentials ◽  
Motor Adaptation ◽  
Motor Command ◽  
Auditory Evoked Potential ◽  
Movement Planning ◽  
Feedback Signal ◽  
Auditory Modulation ◽  
Adults Who Stutter

Purpose We review and interpret our recent series of studies investigating motor-to-auditory influences during speech movement planning in fluent speakers and speakers who stutter. In those studies, we recorded auditory evoked potentials in response to probe tones presented immediately prior to speaking or at the equivalent time in no-speaking control conditions. As a measure of pre-speech auditory modulation (PSAM), we calculated changes in auditory evoked potential amplitude in the speaking conditions relative to the no-speaking conditions. Whereas adults who do not stutter consistently showed PSAM, this phenomenon was greatly reduced or absent in adults who stutter. The same between-group difference was observed in conditions where participants expected to hear their prerecorded speech played back without actively producing it, suggesting that the speakers who stutter use inefficient forward modeling processes rather than inefficient motor command generation processes. Compared with fluent participants, adults who stutter showed both less PSAM and less auditory–motor adaptation when producing speech while exposed to formant-shifted auditory feedback. Across individual participants, however, PSAM and auditory–motor adaptation did not correlate in the typically fluent group, and they were negatively correlated in the stuttering group. Interestingly, speaking with a consistent 100-ms delay added to the auditory feedback signal–normalized PSAM in speakers who stutter, and there no longer was a between-group difference in this condition. Conclusions Combining our own data with human and animal neurophysiological evidence from other laboratories, we interpret the overall findings as suggesting that (a) speech movement planning modulates auditory processing in a manner that may optimize its tuning characteristics for monitoring feedback during speech production and, (b) in conditions with typical auditory feedback, adults who stutter do not appropriately modulate the auditory system prior to speech onset. Lack of modulation of speakers who stutter may lead to maladaptive feedback-driven movement corrections that manifest themselves as repetitive movements or postural fixations.

scholarly journals Altered Dynamics of Cortical Beta-Oscillations during Motor Learning in Cerebellar Ataxia

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jana Klimpke ◽  
Dorothea Henkel ◽  
Hans-Jochen Heinze ◽  
Max-Philipp Stenner
Keyword(s):  
Motor Learning ◽  
Implicit Learning ◽  
Cerebellar Ataxia ◽  
Prediction Error ◽  
Cognitive Strategies ◽  
Strategy Use ◽  
Healthy Controls ◽  
Healthy Individuals ◽  
Beta Oscillations ◽  
Sensory Prediction

AbstractCerebellar ataxia is associated with an implicit motor learning dysfunction, specifically, a miscalibration of internal models relating motor commands to state changes of the body. Explicit cognitive strategies could compensate for deficits in implicit calibration. Surprisingly, however, patients with cerebellar ataxia use insufficient strategies compared to healthy controls. We report a candidate physiological phenomenon of disrupted strategy use in cerebellar ataxia, reflected in an interaction of implicit and explicit learning effects on cortical beta oscillations. We recorded electroencephalography in patients with cerebellar ataxia (n=18), age-matched healthy controls (n=19), and young, healthy individuals (n=34) during a visuomotor rotation paradigm in which an aiming strategy was either explicitly instructed, or had to be discovered through learning. In young, healthy individuals, learning a strategy, but not implicit learning from sensory prediction error alone, decreased the post-movement beta rebound. Disrupted learning from sensory prediction error in patients, on the other hand, unmasked effects of explicit and implicit control that are normally balanced. Specifically, the post-movement beta rebound increased during strategy use when implicit learning was disrupted, i.e., in patients, but not controls. We conclude that a network disturbance due to cerebellar degeneration surfaces in imbalanced cortical beta oscillations normally involved in strategy learning.

Feedback Modalities in Brain–Computer Interfaces: A Systematic Review

2020 ◽  
Vol 64 (1) ◽  
pp. 1186-1190
Author(s):  
Wakana Ishihara ◽  
Karen Moxon ◽  
Sheryl Ehrman ◽  
Mark Yarborough ◽  
Tina L. Panontin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Visual Feedback ◽  
Auditory Feedback ◽  
Brain Computer Interface ◽  
Tactile Feedback ◽  
Proprioceptive Feedback ◽  
Computer Interface ◽  
Computer Interfaces ◽  
Feedback Modalities ◽  
Improving Accuracy

This systematic review addresses the plausibility of using novel feedback modalities for brain–computer interface (BCI) and attempts to identify the best feedback modality on the basis of the effectiveness or learning rate. Out of the chosen studies, it was found that 100% of studies tested visual feedback, 31.6% tested auditory feedback, 57.9% tested tactile feedback, and 21.1% tested proprioceptive feedback. Visual feedback was included in every study design because it was intrinsic to the response of the task (e.g. seeing a cursor move). However, when used alone, it was not very effective at improving accuracy or learning. Proprioceptive feedback was most successful at increasing the effectiveness of motor imagery BCI tasks involving neuroprosthetics. The use of auditory and tactile feedback resulted in mixed results. The limitations of this current study and further study recommendations are discussed.

scholarly journals Interactive effects of incentive value and valence on the performance of discrete action sequences

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Tyler J. Adkins ◽  
Bradley S. Gary ◽  
Taraz G. Lee
Keyword(s):  
Motor Learning ◽  
Large Body ◽  
Interactive Effects ◽  
Motor Tasks ◽  
Skill Retention ◽  
Incentive Value ◽  
Discrete Action ◽  
On Line ◽  
And Performance ◽  
Gains And Losses

AbstractIncentives can be used to increase motivation, leading to better learning and performance on skilled motor tasks. Prior work has shown that monetary punishments enhance on-line performance while equivalent monetary rewards enhance off-line skill retention. However, a large body of literature on loss aversion has shown that losses are treated as larger than equivalent gains. The divergence between the effects of punishments and reward on motor learning could be due to perceived differences in incentive value rather than valence per se. We test this hypothesis by manipulating incentive value and valence while participants trained to perform motor sequences. Consistent with our hypothesis, we found that large reward enhanced on-line performance but impaired the ability to retain the level of performance achieved during training. However, we also found that on-line performance was better with reward than punishment and that the effect of increasing incentive value was more linear with reward (small, medium, large) while the effect of value was more binary with punishment (large vs not large). These results suggest that there are differential effects of punishment and reward on motor learning and that these effects of valence are unlikely to be driven by differences in the subjective magnitude of gains and losses.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document