scholarly journals Drifting pitch awareness after exposure to altered auditory feedback

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthias K. Franken ◽  
Robert Hartsuiker ◽  
Petter Johansson ◽  
Lars Hall ◽  
Andreas Lind
Keyword(s):  
Auditory Feedback ◽  
Sensory Feedback ◽  
Prolonged Exposure ◽  
Sense Of Agency ◽  
Opposite Pattern ◽  
Actual Production ◽  
Sensory Prediction ◽  
Pitch Shift

Various studies have claimed that the sense of agency is based on a comparison between an internal estimate of an action’s outcome and sensory feedback. With respect to speech, this presumes that speakers have a stable pre-articulatory representation of their own speech. However, recent research suggests that the sense of agency is flexible and thus in some contexts we may feel like we produced speech that was not actually produced by us. The current study tested whether the estimated pitch of one’s articulation (termed ‘pitch awareness’) is affected by manipulated auditory feedback. In four experiments, fifty-six participants produced isolated vowels while being exposed to pitch-shifted auditory feedback. After every vocalization, participants indicated whether they thought the feedback was higher or lower than their actual production. After exposure to a block of high-pitched auditory feedback (+500 cents pitch shift), participants were more likely to label subsequent auditory feedback as “lower than my actual production”, suggesting that prolonged exposure to high-pitched auditory feedback led to a drift in participants’ pitch awareness. The opposite pattern was found after exposure to a constant -500 cents pitch shift. This suggests that pitch awareness is not solely based on a pre-articulatory representation of intended speech or on a sensory prediction, but also on sensory feedback. We propose that this drift in pitch awareness could be indicative of a sense of agency over the pitch-shifted auditory feedback in the exposure block. If so, this suggests that the sense of agency over vocal output is flexible.

scholarly journals Speaking with an alien voice: Flexible sense of agency during vocal production

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthias K. Franken ◽  
Robert Hartsuiker ◽  
Petter Johansson ◽  
Lars Hall ◽  
Andreas Lind
Keyword(s):  
Auditory Feedback ◽  
Sensory Feedback ◽  
The Other ◽  
Sense Of Agency ◽  
Comparison Process ◽  
Vocal Production ◽  
Internal Representations ◽  
Normal Voice ◽  
Comparator Model ◽  
Joint Contribution

Speakers monitor auditory feedback during speech production in order to correct for speech errors. The comparator model proposes that this process is supported by comparing sensory feedback to internal predictions of the sensory consequences of articulation. Additionally, this comparison process is proposed to support the sense of agency over vocal output. The current study tests this hypothesis by asking whether mismatching auditory feedback leads to a decrease in the sense of agency as measured by speakers’ responses to pitch-shifted feedback. Participants vocalized while auditory feedback was unexpectedly and briefly pitch-shifted. In addition, in one block, the entire vocalization’s pitch was baseline-shifted (‘alien voice’), while it was not in the other block (‘normal voice’). Participants compensated for the pitch shifts even in the alien voice condition, suggesting that agency was flexible. This is problematic for the classic comparator model, where a mismatching feedback would lead to a loss of agency. Alternative models are discussed in light of these findings, including an adapted comparator model and the inferential account, which suggests that agency is inferred from the joint contribution of several multisensory sources of evidence. Together, these findings suggest that internal representations of one’s own voice are more flexible than often assumed.

scholarly journals Shared mechanisms of auditory and non-auditory vocal learning in the songbird brain

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
James McGregor ◽  
Abigail Grassler ◽  
Paul I. Jaffe ◽  
Amanda Louise Jacob ◽  
Michael Brainard ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Reinforcement Learning ◽  
Basal Ganglia ◽  
General Principle ◽  
Auditory Feedback ◽  
Sensory Feedback ◽  
Vocal Learning ◽  
Neural Systems ◽  
Auditory Information ◽  
Vocal Plasticity

Songbirds and humans share the ability to adaptively modify their vocalizations based on sensory feedback. Prior studies have focused primarily on the role that auditory feedback plays in shaping vocal output throughout life. In contrast, it is unclear whether and how non-auditory information drives vocal plasticity. Here, we first used a reinforcement learning paradigm to establish that non-auditory feedback can drive vocal learning in adult songbirds. We then assessed the role of a songbird basal ganglia-thalamocortical pathway critical to auditory vocal learning in this novel form of vocal plasticity. We found that both this circuit and its dopaminergic inputs are necessary for non-auditory vocal learning, demonstrating that this pathway is not specialized exclusively for auditory-driven vocal learning. The ability of this circuit to use both auditory and non-auditory information to guide vocal learning may reflect a general principle for the neural systems that support vocal plasticity across species.

scholarly journals Dynamics of Self-monitoring and Error Detection in Speech Production: Evidence from Mental Imagery and MEG

2015 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 352-364 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xing Tian ◽  
David Poeppel
Keyword(s):  
Speech Production ◽  
Mental Imagery ◽  
Error Detection ◽  
Auditory Feedback ◽  
Spectral Difference ◽  
Self Monitoring ◽  
Onset Delay ◽  
Nonmonotonic Function ◽  
Four Levels ◽  
Pitch Shift

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.

Interaction of Sensory Feedback: A Child-Adult Comparison of Oral Sensory and Temporal Articulatory Function

1981 ◽  
Vol 53 (3) ◽  
pp. 979-988 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael A. Crary ◽  
Donald J. Fucci ◽  
Zinny S. Bond
Keyword(s):  
Speech Production ◽  
Topical Application ◽  
Auditory Feedback ◽  
Sensory Feedback ◽  
Sensory Thresholds ◽  
Auditory Masking ◽  
Feedback Systems ◽  
Additional Information ◽  
Age Related ◽  
Oral Sensory

Recent studies have demonstrated a systematic increase in lingual sensory thresholds and a temporal articulatory reorganization in subjects speaking under exposure to auditory masking. These data suggest that auditory and lingual sensory feedback systems exist in a balanced interaction specific to the oral articulations involved in speech production. The present study attempted to gain additional information on this proposed interaction. Lingual sensory and temporal articulatory measurements were obtained from 10 adults' and 10 children under each of four feedback conditions: (1) normal feedback, (2) exposure to binaural auditory masking during speech, (3) topical application of anesthesia to the lingual dorsum prior to speech, and (4) combined masking and anesthesia. Analysis indicated that children had lower lingual sensory thresholds than adults in all conditions and that they were more susceptible to the disruption of auditory feedback. Also, measurements of durations of vowels indicated no age-related differences with durations in both groups increasing when auditory feedback was impaired.

Interaction between Auditory and Oral Sensory Feedback in Speech Regulation

1977 ◽  
Vol 45 (1) ◽  
pp. 123-129 ◽  
Author(s):  
Donald Fucci ◽  
Michael A. Crary ◽  
Joseph A. Warren ◽  
Z. S. Bond
Keyword(s):  
Speech Production ◽  
Auditory Feedback ◽  
Sensory Feedback ◽  
Temporal Changes ◽  
Speech Sounds ◽  
Auditory Masking ◽  
Vibrotactile Thresholds ◽  
Oral Sensory ◽  
Before And After ◽  
Feedback Modalities

To investigate the interaction between the auditory and oral sensory feedback modalities during speech production lingual vibrotactile thresholds were obtained from subjects in the following conditions: (1) before and after speech production with normal auditory feedback, (2) before and after speech production under exposure to auditory masking, and (3) before and after exposure to auditory masking without performing speech tasks. In addition duration measurements were obtained for selected speech sounds to investigate temporal changes in the articulatory patterns of subjects in the various conditions. Lingual sensory decreases and temporal reorganization were observed only in subjects speaking under auditory masking. These data suggest a balanced interaction between auditory and oral sensory feedback modalities which, when disturbed, results in non-phonemic change in speech production.

Stabilization of Behavior and Prolonged Exposure to Delayed Auditory Feedback

Science ◽  
1962 ◽  
Vol 135 (3502) ◽  
pp. 437-438 ◽  
Author(s):  
I. Goldiamond ◽  
C. J. Atkinson ◽  
R. C. Bilger
Keyword(s):  
Auditory Feedback ◽  
Prolonged Exposure ◽  
Delayed Auditory Feedback

scholarly journals Distinct Processing of Sensory Prediction Error and Task Error during Motor Learning

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan Tsay ◽  
Adrian Haith ◽  
Richard B Ivry ◽  
Hyosub E Kim
Keyword(s):  
Prediction Error ◽  
Sensory Feedback ◽  
Displacement Method ◽  
Visuomotor Learning ◽  
Primary Signal ◽  
Implicit Motor ◽  
Feedback Method ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Sensory Prediction ◽  
And Task

While sensory-prediction error (SPE), the difference between predicted and actual sensory feedback, is recognized as the primary signal that drives implicit motor recalibration, recent studies have shown that task error (TE), the difference between sensory feedback and the movement goal, also plays a modulatory role. To systematically examine how SPE and TE collectively shape implicit recalibration, we performed a series of visuomotor learning experiments, introducing perturbations that varied the size of TE using a popular target displacement method and the size of SPE using a clamped visual feedback method. In Experiments 1 & 2, we observed robust sign-dependent changes in hand angle in response to perturbations with both SPE and TE but failed to observe changes in hand angle in response to TE-only perturbations. Yet in Experiments 3 & 4, the magnitude of TE modulated implicit recalibration in the presence of a fixed SPE. Taken together, these results underscore that implicit recalibration is driven by both SPE and TE (Kim, Parvin, & Ivry, 2019), while specifying unappreciated interactions between these two error-based processes. First, TE only impacts implicit calibration when SPE is present. Second, transient changes occurring when the target is displaced to manipulate TE has an attenuating effect on implicit recalibration, perhaps due to attention being directed away from the sensory feedback.

scholarly journals Task errors contribute to implicit remapping in sensorimotor adaptation

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Li-Ann Leow ◽  
Welber Marinovic ◽  
Aymar de Rugy ◽  
Timothy J Carroll
Keyword(s):  
Sensory Feedback ◽  
Hand Position ◽  
Sensorimotor Adaptation ◽  
Prediction Errors ◽  
Reward Prediction ◽  
Strategic Processes ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Sensory Prediction ◽  
Or Task

AbstractPerturbations of sensory feedback evoke sensory prediction errors (discrepancies between predicted and actual sensory outcomes of movements), and reward prediction errors (discrepancies between predicted rewards and actual rewards). Sensory prediction errors result in obligatory remapping of the relationship between motor commands and predicted sensory outcomes. The role of reward prediction errors in sensorimotor adaptation is less clear. When moving towards a target, we expect to obtain the reward of hitting the target, and so we experience a reward prediction error if the perturbation causes us to miss it. These discrepancies between desired task outcomes and actual task outcomes, or “task errors”, are thought to drive the use of strategic processes to restore success, although their role is not fully understood. Here, we investigated the role of task errors in sensorimotor adaptation: during target-reaching, we either removed task errors by moving the target mid-movement to align with cursor feedback of hand position, or enforced task error by moving the target away from the cursor feedback of hand position. Removing task errors not only reduced the rate and extent of adaptation during exposure to the perturbation, but also reduced the amount of post-adaptation implicit remapping. Hence, task errors contribute to implicit remapping resulting from sensory prediction errors. This suggests that the system which implicitly acquires new sensorimotor maps via exposure to sensory prediction errors is also sensitive to reward prediction errors.

scholarly journals Reduced transfer of visuomotor adaptation is associated with aberrant sense of agency in Schizophrenia

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sonia Bansal ◽  
Karthik G Murthy ◽  
Justin Fitzgerald ◽  
Barbara L. Schwartz ◽  
Wilsaan M. Joiner
Keyword(s):  
Negative Symptoms ◽  
Motor Behavior ◽  
Visuomotor Adaptation ◽  
Sense Of Agency ◽  
Common Source ◽  
Prediction Errors ◽  
Movement Trajectories ◽  
Action Awareness ◽  
Before And After ◽  
Sensory Prediction

ABSTRACTOne deficit associated with schizophrenia (SZ) is the reduced ability to distinguish sensations resulting from self-caused actions from those due to external sources. This reduced sense of agency (SoA, awareness of ownership over self-generated actions) is hypothesized to result from a diminished utilization of internal monitoring signals of self-movement (i.e., efferent copy) which subsequently impairs forming and utilizing sensory prediction errors (differences between the predicted and actual sensory consequences resulting from movement). Here, we investigated the connections between clinical SZ symptoms and motor adaptation, a process that uses sensory prediction errors to update motor output. Schizophrenia patients (SZP, N=30) and non-psychiatric healthy control subjects (HC, N=31) adapted to altered movement visual feedback, and then applied the motor recalibration to untested contexts (i.e., the spatial generalization to untrained targets). Although adaptation was similar for SZP and controls, the extent of generalization was significantly less for SZP; movement trajectories made by patients to the furthest untrained target (135°) before and after adaptation were largely indistinguishable. Interestingly, deficits in the generalization were correlated to positive symptoms of psychosis (e.g., hallucinations), but not negative symptoms. Generalization was also associated with subjective measures of SoA across both SZP and HC, emphasizing the major role action awareness plays in motor behavior, and suggesting that tendencies to misattribute agency, even in HC, manifest in abnormal motor performance. We discuss the possible link of these findings to cerebellar circuit abnormalities that may be a common source for deficits in the utilization of sensory prediction errors and aberrant SoA.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document