Cortico-cerebellar Networks Drive Sensorimotor Learning in Speech

Lametti, Daniel R.; Smith, Harriet J; Freidin, Phoebe; Watkins, Kate E.

doi:10.1162/jocn_a_01216

Cited by 30 publications

(41 citation statements)

References 50 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The F1+110 group (Experiment 1) experienced a 110 mel increase in first formant (F1) production, while the F2−110 group (Experiment 2) experienced a 110 mel decrease in second formant (F2) production. A feedback shift magnitude of 110 mel was selected for this study because it is comparable to the F1 feedback perturbation used previously (Lametti et al, 2018b).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…On the other hand, there is also evidence to suggest that formants are not modified independently. For example, reliable F2 changes in response to shifts in F1 were observed in the opposite direction to the compensatory changes in F1 for utterances containing the vowel /⍰/, such as “bed” and “head” (Rochet-Capellan and Ostry, 2011; Lametti et al, 2018b).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We also predicted based on studies where the shift was applied abruptly (e.g. Rochet-Capellan and Ostry 2011; Lametti et al, 2018b) that increases in F2 would accompany the F1 decrease to move speech closer to a known region of the vowel space. In other words, when participants produced “head, bed, dead” and heard an upward shift in F1, an increase in F2 concurrent with the compensatory decrease in F1 would place the new production closer to “hid, bid, did” in vowel space (see Figure 1).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Altered auditory feedback induces coupled changes in formant frequencies during speech production

D-L.

Lametti

Watkins

2019

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Speaking is one of the most complicated motor behaviours, involving a large number of articulatory muscles which can move independently to command precise changes in speech acoustics. Here, we used real-time manipulations of speech feedback to test whether the acoustics of speech production (e.g. the formants) reflect independently controlled articulatory movements or combinations of movements. During repetitive productions of “head, bed, dead”, either the first (F1) or the second formant (F2) of vowels was shifted and fed back to participants. We then examined whether changes in production in response to these alterations occurred for only the perturbed formant or both formants. In Experiment 1, our results showed that participants who received increased F1 feedback significantly decreased their F1 productions in compensation, but also significantly increased the frequency of their F2 productions. The combined F1-F2 change moved the utterances closer to a known pattern of speech production (i.e. the vowel category “hid, bid, did”). In Experiment 2, we further showed that a downshift in frequency of F2 feedback also induced significant compensatory changes in both the perturbed (F2) and the unperturbed formant (F1) that were in opposite directions. Taken together, the results demonstrate that a shift in auditory feedback of a single formant drives combined changes in related formants. The results suggest that, although formants can be controlled independently, the speech motor system may favour a strategy in which changes in formant production are coupled to maintain speech production within specific regions of the vowel space corresponding to existing speech-sound categories.New & NoteworthyFindings from previous studies examining responses to altered auditory feedback are inconsistent with respect to the changes speakers make to their production. Speakers can compensate by specifically altering their production to offset the acoustic error in feedback. Alternatively, they may compensate by changing their speech production more globally to produce a speech sound closer to an existing category in their repertoire. Our study shows support for the latter strategy.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Altered auditory feedback induces coupled changes in formant frequencies during speech production

D-L.

Lametti

Watkins

2019

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Previous reports [26] and our own experience [27] suggests that increasing stimulation intensity beyond 1mA does not increase the effectiveness of anodal stimulation over the ventral motor cortex. In addition, reducing the duration of stimulation is unlikely to explain our null results as numerous reports of tDCS applied to the motor cortex in healthy humans show behavioural modulation with stimulation durations of between 10 and 16 minutes [4,6,7,28,29]. In sum, we believe the changes to the stimulation protocol described above are unlikely explanations for our failure to detect a modulatory effect on task performance in this study.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 53%

“…Specifically, when targeting the representation of the hand in primary motor cortex (M1), the size of the MEP elicited by TMS in the contralateral hand muscles was increased by anodal tDCS (a-tDCS), and decreased by cathodal tDCS (c-tDCS) relative to sham stimulation [5,6] When used in combination with a behavioural task, a single session of tDCS can modulate performance. For speech production specifically, there is some evidence to suggest that tDCS can modulate performance in neurologically intact speakers [7][8][9]. Previously, tDCS modulated performance on a task involving the repetition of tongue twisters [1].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Transcranial Direct current stimulation does not modulate performance on a tongue twister task

Wiltshire

Watkins

2019

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: TDCS modulates cortical excitability in a polarity-specific way. When used in combination with a behavioural task, it can also alter performance. Previously, tDCS modulated the performance of older adults on a complex speech motor learning task, which involved repetition of tongue twisters [1].Objective: We aimed to replicate this finding in healthy young participants and to extend it by measuring tDCS-induced changes in motor excitability using transcranial magnetic stimulation and motor-evoked potentials elicited in the lips.Method: In a double-blind randomized sham-controlled study, three groups of 20 participants received: 1) anodal tDCS to the left IFG/LipM1 and cathodal tDCS to the right hemisphere homologue; or 2) cathodal tDCS over the left and anodal over the right; or 3) sham stimulation. Participants heard and repeated tongue twisters and matched simple sentences before, during and 10 minutes after the stimulation. Motor excitability was measured before and immediately after the tDCS.Results: The improvement in performance of tongue twister repetition from baseline to after stimulation was significantly greater than for the simple sentences but did not differ among the three groups. Motor excitability significantly decreased to a small but similar extent across the three groups.Conclusions: TDCS did not modulate performance on a complex articulation task in healthy young adults. TDCS applied concurrently with task learning also failed to modulate motor excitability in expected ways. TDCS may be most effective in brains where brain function is sub-optimal due to age-related declines or pathology.

show abstract

Neural bases of sensorimotor adaptation in the vocal motor system

Behroozmand

Sangtian

2018

Exp Brain Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study used event-related potential (ERP) recordings to investigate the neural mechanisms of sensorimotor adaptation in response to altered auditory feedback (AAF) during vocal production. 12 healthy speakers were tested under a vocal motor adaptation paradigm in which the fundamental frequency (F0) of their voice auditory feedback was pitch-shifted downward by one semi-tone (- 100 cents) during vowel vocalizations. Behavioral results revealed that subjects adapted to AAF by producing opposing (upward) responses to pitch-shift stimuli, and this adaptive behavior persisted after feedback alteration was removed (washout). We found that adaptation to AAF was accompanied by a significant increase in the amplitude of a parietal ERP activity elicited after the onset of vocalization. However, no such effect was observed for pre-motor ERPs elicited before vocalization onset. Moreover, we found that adaptive vocal responses were negatively correlated with ERPs over the parietal and positively correlated with those over the fronto-central areas after vocalization onset. These findings suggest that vocal motor adaptation is mediated by sensorimotor reprogramming of feedforward motor commands through incorporating auditory feedback, which is indexed by modulation of behavioral and ERP responses to AAF. We suggest that modulation of neural activities in the parietal cortex highlights its significance as a neural interface for sensorimotor integration and indicates its critical role in vocal motor adaptation. Our findings support the notion that the parietal mechanisms are involved in driving adaptive motor behavior to cope with unexpected changes in the sensory environment to accomplish communication goals during vocal production and motor control.

show abstract

Cortico-cerebellar Networks Drive Sensorimotor Learning in Speech

Cited by 30 publications

References 50 publications

Altered auditory feedback induces coupled changes in formant frequencies during speech production

Altered auditory feedback induces coupled changes in formant frequencies during speech production

Transcranial Direct current stimulation does not modulate performance on a tongue twister task

Neural bases of sensorimotor adaptation in the vocal motor system

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About