A Simple 3-Parameter Model for Examining Adaptation in Speech and Voice Production

Kearney, Elaine; Nieto-Castañón, Alfonso; Weerathunge, Hasini R; Falsini, Riccardo; Daliri, Ayoub; Abur, Defne; Ballard, Kirrie J.; Chang, Soo-Eun; Chao, Sara Ching; Murray, Elizabeth S. Heller; Scott, Terri L.; Guenther, Frank H.

doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02995

Cited by 23 publications

(31 citation statements)

References 47 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Taken together, the adaptation phenomenon observed in this study is evidence for continuous control of speech, which happens whether the size of the F0 shift is subtle or very salient 30 , 71 , 72 . However, it is critical to consider the responses of this paradigm as a combination of adaptive processes, motor plan refinement, and most importantly, systemic optimization imposed on the entire system 73 .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Adaptation to pitch-altered feedback is independent of one’s own voice pitch sensitivity

Alemi

Lehmann

Deroche

2020

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Monitoring voice pitch is a fine-tuned process in daily conversations as conveying accurately the linguistic and affective cues in a given utterance depends on the precise control of phonation and intonation. This monitoring is thought to depend on whether the error is treated as self-generated or externally-generated, resulting in either a correction or inflation of errors. The present study reports on two separate paradigms of adaptation to altered feedback to explore whether participants could behave in a more cohesive manner once the error is of comparable size perceptually. The vocal behavior of normal-hearing and fluent speakers was recorded in response to a personalized size of pitch shift versus a non-specific size, one semitone. The personalized size of shift was determined based on the just-noticeable difference in fundamental frequency (F0) of each participant’s voice. Here we show that both tasks successfully demonstrated opposing responses to a constant and predictable F0 perturbation (on from the production onset) but these effects barely carried over once the feedback was back to normal, depicting a pattern that bears some resemblance to compensatory responses. Experiencing a F0 shift that is perceived as self-generated (because it was precisely just-noticeable) is not enough to force speakers to behave more consistently and more homogeneously in an opposing manner. On the contrary, our results suggest that the type of the response as well as the magnitude of the response do not depend in any trivial way on the sensitivity of participants to their own voice pitch. Based on this finding, we speculate that error correction could possibly occur even with a bionic ear, typically even when F0 cues are too subtle for cochlear implant users to detect accurately.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In line with the typical adaptation paradigms 73 , F0 manipulation was carried out over four distinct phases. In the first phase called the Baseline, participants received unaltered auditory feedback of their vocalizations for the first 80 trials.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Adaptation to pitch-altered feedback is independent of one’s own voice pitch sensitivity

Alemi

Lehmann

Deroche

2020

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Because the mechanisms by which tDCS affects cortical activity are uncertain and may be specific to a study's particular task (see Bortoletto et al, 2015), theoretically either error sensitivity, cortical plasticity, or both could have been modulated during anodal stimulation. We therefore utilized computational simulations using a simplified version of an established model of speech motor control, the DIVA model (Kearney et al, 2020), to decompose the adaptation responses into distinct, mechanistically precise components. Specifically, we extracted estimates of three key parameters characterizing the main control subsystems of the speech motor controller -the auditory feedback control gain, the somatosensory feedback control gain, and the feedforward command learning/adaptation rate -under anodal tDCS and sham stimulation.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The following equations used in the current simulations capture the key aspects of the DIVA model in a simplified form (Kearney et al, 2020) that involves only three free parameters (a A, a S, and l FF ), thereby eliminating redundancies in the set of fitting parameters that would otherwise obfuscate the neural mechanisms underlying compensation since such redundancies can lead to multiple parameter values that produce equivalent fits to the data. Equation 1 defines the value of F1 produced by the subject on a given trial (indexed by n) as:…”

Section: Model Descriptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Noninvasive neurostimulation of left ventral motor cortex enhances sensorimotor adaptation in speech production

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sensorimotor adaptation-enduring changes to motor commands due to sensory feedback-allows speakers to match their articulations to intended speech acoustics. How the brain integrates auditory feedback to modify speech motor commands and what limits the degree of these modifications remain unknown. Here, we investigated the role of speech motor cortex in modifying stored speech motor plans. In a within-subjects design, participants underwent separate sessions of sham and anodal transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) over speech motor cortex while speaking and receiving altered auditory feedback of the first formant. Anodal tDCS increased the rate of sensorimotor adaptation for feedback perturbation. Computational modeling of our results using the Directions Into Velocities of Articulators (DIVA) framework of speech production suggested that tDCS primarily affected behavior by increasing the feedforward learning rate. This study demonstrates how focal noninvasive neurostimulation can enhance the integration of auditory feedback into speech motor plans.

show abstract

“…During this speech monitoring process, the SMS may find a mismatch between the predicted outcome and sensory feedback (i.e., prediction error ). The SMS uses the sensory prediction error to modify ( adapt ) its motor programs so that future speech movements more accurately reach the desired sensory targets (Daliri, 2021; Kearney et al, 2020). Thus, error detection and error adaptation are crucial processes that ensure the accuracy of speech movements.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Relevance of Auditory Errors Decreases When Errors Are Introduced Suddenly

Chao

Daliri

2021

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

A Simple 3-Parameter Model for Examining Adaptation in Speech and Voice Production

Cited by 23 publications

References 47 publications

Adaptation to pitch-altered feedback is independent of one’s own voice pitch sensitivity

Adaptation to pitch-altered feedback is independent of one’s own voice pitch sensitivity

Noninvasive neurostimulation of left ventral motor cortex enhances sensorimotor adaptation in speech production

Relevance of Auditory Errors Decreases When Errors Are Introduced Suddenly

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About