ERP correlates of the magnitude of pitch errors detected in the human voice

Scheerer, Nichole E.; Behich, J.; Liu, H.; Jones, Jeffery A.

doi:10.1016/j.neuroscience.2013.02.054

Cited by 63 publications

(107 citation statements)

References 44 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…(For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.) Such effects are in line with previous studies showing that the P2 is sensitive to different stimulus magnitudes (Kimura, Katayama, & Murohashi, 2006;Liu, Meshman, Behroozmand, & Larson, 2011;Scheerer, Behich, Liu, & Jones, 2013). Similarly, the classic P300 effect on magnitude was observed such that a large amount of reward evokes a larger P300, which was consistent with previous studies (Goyer, Woldorff, & Huettel, 2008;Sato et al, 2005;Yeung & Sanfey, 2004).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

The procrastinators want it now: Behavioral and event-related potential evidence of the procrastination of intertemporal choices

Gui

Lin

et al. 2016

Brain and Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

The procrastinators want it now: Behavioral and event-related potential evidence of the procrastination of intertemporal choices

Gui

Lin

et al. 2016

Brain and Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…We chose only upward shifts to save experimental time in the electrophysiological recordings. Results from previous studies suggest that human electrophysiological responses to downward and upward shifts have no qualitative (only quantitative) differences (e.g., upward shifts: Behroozmand, Karvelis, Liu, & Larson, 2009; downward shifts: Scheerer et al, 2013). Considering our experimental design that includes an additional factor of onset delay with four levels (see Procedure below), we only chose the upward shifts to minimize the total number of conditions and reduce the MEG recording time.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…For example, a recent EEG study showed that the P2 response (the analog of M200) correlated with vocal compensation response magnitude (Scheerer et al, 2013). That is, P2 could reflect the start of the sensory-to-motor transformation (update the motor plan to compensate the pitch shift), a downstream process from the N1 that reflects the comparison between prediction and playback.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The employment of the one-tailed test in each condition followed directly from our specific hypothesis. Perceptual suppression has been found in the responses to the normal feedback during actions (e.g., Chang et al, 2013; Christoffels, van de Ven, Waldorp, Formisano, & Schiller, 2011; Houde et al, 2002; Numminen et al, 1999; Blakemore et al, 1998), whereas enhancement has been found whenever the feedback deviates from actions (Chang et al, 2013; Scheerer et al, 2013; Behroozmand et al, 2009; Tourville et al, 2008). Therefore, we hypothesized a specific modulation direction for a particular condition: Suppression when the playback is normal, and enhancement when the playback is altered.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Hints of nonlinearity come from electrophysiological studies using a pitch shift manipulation. The linear increase of neural responses as a function of pitch perturbation level stopped at a certain point (e.g., plateaued between 200 and 500 cents, Liu, Meshman, Behroozmand, & Larson, 2011; 250 cents in P2 responses, Scheerer, Behich, Liu, & Jones, 2013). Therefore, we hypothesize that a spectral integration window constrains the comparison between internal prediction and external feedback; hence, the neural responses to perturbed feedback do not linearly increase with spectral distance between prediction and feedback beyond the limit of the spectral window.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

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

Tian¹,

Poeppel²

2015

Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Mechanisms of voice control related to prosody in autism spectrum disorder and first‐degree relatives

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Differences in prosody (e.g., intonation, rhythm) are among the most obvious language‐related impairments in autism spectrum disorder (ASD), and significantly impact communication. Subtle prosodic differences have also been identified in a subset of clinically unaffected first‐degree relatives of individuals with ASD, and may reflect genetic liability to ASD. This study investigated the neural basis of prosodic differences in ASD and first‐degree relatives through analysis of feedforward and feedback control involved in the planning, production, self‐monitoring, and self‐correction of speech by using a pitch‐perturbed auditory feedback paradigm during sustained vowel and speech production. Results revealed larger vocal response magnitudes to pitch‐perturbed auditory feedback across tasks in ASD and ASD parent groups, with differences in sustained vowel production driven by parents who displayed subclinical personality and language features associated with ASD (i.e., broad autism phenotype). Both ASD and ASD parent groups exhibited increased response onset latencies during sustained vowel production, while the ASD parent group exhibited decreased response onset latencies during speech production. Vocal response magnitudes across tasks were associated with prosodic atypicalities in both individuals with ASD and their parents. Exploratory event‐related potential (ERP) analyses in a subgroup of participants during the sustained vowel task revealed reduced P1 ERP amplitudes in the ASD group, with similar trends observed in parents. Overall, results suggest underdeveloped feedforward systems and neural attenuation in detecting audio‐vocal feedback may contribute to ASD‐related prosodic atypicalities. Importantly, results implicate atypical audio‐vocal integration as a marker of genetic risk to ASD, evident in ASD and among clinically unaffected relatives. Autism Res 2019, 12: 1192–1210. © 2019 The Authors. Autism Research published by International Society for Autism Research published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Lay Summary Previous research has identified atypicalities in prosody (e.g., intonation) in individuals with ASD and a subset of their first‐degree relatives. In order to better understand the mechanisms underlying prosodic differences in ASD, this study examined how individuals with ASD and their parents responded to unexpected differences in what they heard themselves say to modify control of their voice (i.e., audio‐vocal integration). Results suggest that disruptions to audio‐vocal integration in individuals with ASD contribute to ASD‐related prosodic atypicalities, and the more subtle differences observed in parents could reflect underlying genetic liability to ASD.

show abstract

ERP correlates of the magnitude of pitch errors detected in the human voice

Cited by 63 publications

References 44 publications

The procrastinators want it now: Behavioral and event-related potential evidence of the procrastination of intertemporal choices

The procrastinators want it now: Behavioral and event-related potential evidence of the procrastination of intertemporal choices

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

Mechanisms of voice control related to prosody in autism spectrum disorder and first‐degree relatives

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About