Purpose: When the speech motor system encounters errors, it generates adaptive responses to compensate for the errors. Unlike errors induced by formant-shift perturbations, errors induced by formant-clamp perturbations do not correspond with the speaker's speech (i.e., degraded motor-to-auditory correspondence). We previously showed that adaptive responses to formant-clamp perturbations are smaller than responses to formant-shift perturbations when perturbations are introduced gradually. This study examined responses to formant-clamp and formant-shift perturbations when perturbations are introduced suddenly. Method: One group of participants ( n = 30) experienced gradually introduced formant-clamp and formant-shift perturbations, and another group ( n = 30) experienced suddenly introduced formant-clamp and formant-shift perturbations. We designed the perturbations based on participant-specific vowel configurations such that a participant's first and second formants of /ɛ/ were perturbed toward their /æ/. To estimate adaptive responses, we measured formant changes (0–100 ms of the vowel) in response to the formant perturbations. Results: We found that (a) the difference between responses to formant-clamp and formant-shift perturbations was smaller when the perturbations were introduced suddenly and (b) responses to suddenly introduced (but not gradually introduced) formant-shift perturbations positively correlated with responses to formant-clamp perturbations. Conclusions: These results showed that the speech motor system responds to errors induced by formant-shift and formant-clamp perturbations more differently when perturbations are introduced gradually than suddenly. Overall, the quality of errors (formant-shift vs. formant-clamp) and the manner of introducing errors (gradually vs. suddenly) modulate the speech motor system's evaluations of and responses to errors. Supplemental Material: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.22406422

Purpose: When the speech motor system encounters errors, it generates adaptive responses to compensate for the errors. We previously showed that adaptive responses to task-irrelevant errors are significantly smaller than responses to task-relevant errors when errors are introduced gradually. The current study aimed to examine responses to task-irrelevant and task-relevant errors when errors are introduced suddenly. Method: We used an adaptation paradigm in which participants experienced task-relevant errors (induced by formant-shift perturbations) and task-irrelevant errors (induced by formant-clamp perturbations). For one group of participants (N = 30), we applied the perturbations gradually. The second group of participants (N = 30) received the perturbations suddenly. We designed the perturbations based on participant-specific vowel configurations such that a participant's first and second formants of /ɛ/ were perturbed toward their /æ/. To estimate adaptive responses, we measured formant changes (within 0–100 ms of the vowel onset) in response to the formant perturbations. Results: We found that (1) the difference between adaptive responses to formant-shift and formant-clamp perturbations was the smallest for the suddenly introduced perturbations, and (2) responses to formant-shift perturbations positively correlated with responses to formant-clamp perturbations for the suddenly (but not gradually) introduced perturbations. Conclusions: These results showed that the speech motor system responds to task-relevant errors and task-irrelevant errors more differently when errors are introduced gradually than suddenly. Overall, the speech motor system evaluates the relevance of errors and uses its evaluation to modulate its adaptive responses to errors.