II Sensory Feedback Influences on Keytapping Motor Tasks

Abstract

Subjects were trained to tap a key continuously at a specific rate, and with a specific amount of pressure (regularity task). Performance of this task was studied under conditions of: (a) decreased auditory feedback (masking noise through earphones), (b) decreased visual feedback (tapping hand screened from view), (c) vibration (vibrators applied to forearm in order to “mask” proprioceptive feedback), (d) digital block of tapping finger, and (e) combination of all four conditions. Significant changes in rate and intensity of tapping resulted under conditions of decreased auditory feedback, vibration, and the combined condition. In the second part of the study, the effects of different delayed sensory events on keytapping were examined. The five conditions of delayed sensory feedback were: (a) delayed auditory feedback, (b) delayed visual feedback, (c) delayed tactile feedback, (d) the first three delayed sensory events presented simultaneously, and (e) condition (d) repeated with digital block of the tapping finger. The conditions of delayed sensory feedback did not markedly alter performance of the regularity task. The same conditions of delayed sensory feedback did, however, produce highly significant changes in the performance of a more complex pattern task. All of these delay conditions produced parallel changes in the pattern task, namely increased intensity and decreased rate of tapping. The fact that the pattern task is more disturbed by delayed sensory feedback than the regularity task suggests that temporal complexity of the task is one determinant of the degree to which it will be disturbed by a delay in sensory feedback.

The Repetition of Single Speech Sounds Under Delayed Auditory Feedback

“…The absence of a significant difference between performance under SAP and performance under DAF parallels the results found by Chase et al (1961) when they had subjects performing a regularity task in keytapping. Chase concluded from this study that a certain amount of temporal complexity in a task was necessary before breakdown in performance under DAF occurs.…”

Investigations of the impact of altered auditory feedback in‐the‐ear devices on the speech of people who stutter: initial fitting and 4‐month follow‐up

“…The fact that stuttering is reduced when individuals who stutter speak under conditions of altered auditory feedback (AAF) has been evident for more than 45 years. Conditions of AAF known to reduce stuttering relative to non-AAF (NAF) include delayed auditory feedback (DAF) (Naylor 1953, Chase et al 1961, Kalinowski et al 1993, 1999, frequency-altered feedback (FAF) (Howell et al 1987, Kalinowski, et al 1993, Hargrave et al 1994, 1997a, Armson and Stuart 1998, masked auditory feedback (MAF) (Shane 1955, Maraist and Hutton 1957, Kalinowski et al 1993, and reverberation (Adamczyk et al 1975, Smolka and Adamczyk 1992. MAF has been shown to be less efficient in reducing stuttering than DAF and FAF (Howell et al 1987, Kalinowski et al 1993.…”

FTAP: A Linux-based program for tapping and music experiments

“…Delayed auditory feedback (DAF) experiments in tapping (Chase, Rapin, Gilden, Sutton, & Guilfoyle, 1961;Ruhm & Cooper, 1962) and music (Finney, 1997;Gates, Bradshaw, & Nettleton, 1974), including the combination of synchronous and delayed feedback (Ruhm & Cooper, 1964) and synchronization tasks combined with DAF (Aschersleben & Prinz, 1997).…”