Hearing your voice through bone and air: Implications for explanations of stuttering behavior from studies of normal speakers

Howell, Peter; Powell, David J.

doi:10.1016/0094-730x(84)90019-6

Cited by 12 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Auditory feedback might also have a role in control of segmental aspects in speech produced outside AAF procedures, depending on the position taken about whether the auditory feedback is reflexive of the speaker's intention or not. Currently there is only one study that suggests auditory feedback is not reflexive of speech output (Howell & Powell, 1984). This suggests that the cautious approach would be to not definitely rule out auditory feedback having a role in maintaining gross segmental information.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The air-borne sound contains sufficient information to decode a speaker's intention (other people listening to the speech understand the message). The bone-conducted sound, on the other hand, is dominated by the voice fundamental, formant structure is heavily attenuated and resonances of body structures extraneous to vocalization (such as the skull) affect this component (Howell & Powell, 1984). Consequently, the bone-conducted sound contains limited information about articulation.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Such masking would reduce the ability of a speaker to retrieve information about the articulation from the air-conducted feedback. This argument relies heavily on the evidence presented by Howell and Powell (1984). If future work confirms that the auditory feedback signal is restricted in the information it provides about articulation, models that assume feedback is used to compute a precise correction needed to obviate an error will need revision (Guenther, 2001; Neilson & Neilson, 1991, see the general discussion).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Timing interference to speech in altered listening conditions

Howell

Sackin

2002

The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A theory is outlined that explains the disruption that occurs when auditory feedback is altered. The key part of the theory is that the number of, and relationship between, inputs to a timekeeper, operative during speech control, affects speech performance. The effects of alteration to auditory feedback depend on the extra input provided to the timekeeper. Different disruption is predicted for auditory feedback that is out of synchrony with other speech activity (e.g., delayed auditory feedback, DAF) compared with synchronous forms of altered feedback (e.g., frequency shifted feedback, FSF). Stimulus manipulations that can be made synchronously with speech are predicted to cause equivalent disruption to the synchronous form of altered feedback. Three experiments are reported. In all of them, subjects repeated a syllable at a fixed rate (Wing & Kristofferson, 1973). Overall timing variance was decomposed into the variance of a timekeeper (Cv) and the variance of a motor process (Mv). Experiment 1 validated Wing and Kristofferson's method for estimating Cv in a speech task by showing that only this variance component increased when subjects repeated syllables at different rates. Experiment 2 showed DAF increased Cv compared with when no altered sound occurred (Experiment 1) and compared with FSF. In Experiment 3, sections of the subject's output sequence were increased in amplitude. Subjects just heard this sound in one condition and made a duration decision about it in a second condition. When no response was made, results were like those with FSF. When a response was made, Cv increased at longer repetition periods. The findings that the principal effect of DAF, a duration decision and repetition period is on Cv whereas synchronous alterations that do not require a decision (amplitude increased sections where no response was made and FSF) do not affect Cv, support the hypothesis that the timekeeping process is affected by synchronized and asynchronized inputs in different ways.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Timing interference to speech in altered listening conditions

Howell

Sackin

2002

The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It needs to be highlighted that somatosensory feedback control is still at work under masking noise because auditory feedback is not the sole input perceived by sensory system (Lametti et al, 2012). In addition, the perception of auditory feedback is indeed a very complex process, involving air conduction and more peripheral bone conduction (Howell & Powell, 1984). Researchers usually minimize the influence of bone-conducted auditory feedback using loud noise (Christoffels et al, 2007), whispered speech (Houde & Jordan, 2002;Zheng et al, 2010), or acoustic calibration that provides the feedback with a sound pressure level gain of 10 dB relative to participants' vocal output (Ballard et al, 2018;Chen et al, 2015).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A cross-language study on feedforward and feedback control of voice intensity in Chinese–English bilinguals

Cai

Yin

Zhang

2020

Applied Psycholinguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract Speech production requires the combined efforts of feedforward and feedback control, but it remains unclear whether the relative weighting of feedforward and feedback control is organized differently between the first language (L1) and the second language (L2). In the present study, a group of Chinese–English bilinguals named pictures in their L1 and L2, while being exposed to multitalker noise. Experiment 1 compared feedforward control between L1 and L2 speech production by examining intensity increases in response to a masking noise (90 dB SPL). Experiment 2 compared feedback control between L1 and L2 speech production by examining intensity increases in response to a weak (30 dB SPL) or strong noise (60 dB SPL). We also examined a potential relationship between L2 fluency and the relative weighting of feedforward and feedback systems. The results indicated that L2 speech production relies less on feedforward control relative to L1, exhibiting attenuated Lombard effects to the masking noise. In contrast, L2 speech production relies more on feedback control than L1, producing larger Lombard effects to the weak and strong noise. The relative weighting of feedforward and feedback control is dynamically changed as second language learning progresses.

show abstract

“…11 Arguments against such a role in- clude the fact that the speech of adventitiously deafened adults only slowly deteriorates at the segmental level 12 ; that a closed-loop feedback system would be too slow, particularly for consonant production; 12 and that boneconducted speech feedback (SF), because it is spectrally different from, but equally as loud as the air component, 13 is analogous to a noise masker that reduces the overall feedback intelligibility (ie, the segmental information in SF). 14 The present study investigates the contribution of self-hearing to speech regulation in persons with hearing loss. It concentrates on adults who had developed speech before the onset of deafness but show changes in speech production due to prolonged deafness.…”

Section: T Has Long Been Observed Thatmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of Temporal and Spectral Alterations of Speech Feedback on Speech Production by Persons With Hearing Loss

Barac-Cikoja

2004

Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To evaluate the effects of delay and spectral alteration of speech feedback (SF) on the speaking rate and voice pitch in adult users of hearing aids (HAs) and cochlear implants (CIs). Methods: Repeated-measure, completely crossed, 2-factor design. Spectral alterations were implemented by replacing SF with noise that was filtered into 1-, 2-, or 4-frequency bands and speech-modulated in real time. Delays varied from 25 to 200 milliseconds. Subjects: Seven HA users with severe to profound hearing loss and 6 CI users were randomly recruited by public advertising. All were postlingually deafened adults with intelligible speech. Results: The average speaking rate significantly decreased and rate variability significantly increased with increase in SF delay for both groups. Spectral alterations of SF reduced the effect on speaking rate in the HA group but not in the CI group. Spectral alterations did not significantly affect rate variability in the HA group but did so in the CI group. Average voice pitch increased significantly with increase in SF delay and with spectral alterations of SF in the HA group. No significant effects on average pitch of CI users were noted. Conclusions: The 2 groups were affected differently by the delay and spectral alterations of SF. The differences possibly reflect greater spectral resolution ability in the case of CI users and greater audibility of boneconducted SF (particularly in the low-frequency region) among the HA users.

show abstract

Hearing your voice through bone and air: Implications for explanations of stuttering behavior from studies of normal speakers

Cited by 12 publications

References 14 publications

Timing interference to speech in altered listening conditions

Timing interference to speech in altered listening conditions

A cross-language study on feedforward and feedback control of voice intensity in Chinese–English bilinguals

Effects of Temporal and Spectral Alterations of Speech Feedback on Speech Production by Persons With Hearing Loss

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About