Modulation of Auditory Responses to Speech vs. Nonspeech Stimuli during Speech Movement Planning

Abstract

Previously, we showed that the N100 amplitude in long latency auditory evoked potentials (LLAEPs) elicited by pure tone probe stimuli is modulated when the stimuli are delivered during speech movement planning as compared with no-speaking control conditions. Given that we probed the auditory system only with pure tones, it remained unknown whether the nature and magnitude of this pre-speech auditory modulation depends on the type of auditory stimulus. Thus, here, we asked whether the effect of speech movement planning on auditory processing varies depending on the type of auditory stimulus. In an experiment with nine adult subjects, we recorded LLAEPs that were elicited by either pure tones or speech syllables when these stimuli were presented prior to speech onset in a delayed-response speaking condition vs. a silent reading control condition. Results showed no statistically significant difference in pre-speech modulation of the N100 amplitude (early stages of auditory processing) for the speech stimuli as compared with the nonspeech stimuli. However, the amplitude of the P200 component (later stages of auditory processing) showed a statistically significant pre-speech modulation that was specific to the speech stimuli only. Hence, the overall results from this study indicate that, immediately prior to speech onset, modulation of the auditory system has a general effect on early processing stages but a speech-specific effect on later processing stages. This finding is consistent with the hypothesis that pre-speech auditory modulation may play a role in priming the auditory system for its role in monitoring auditory feedback during speech production.

Role of the Cerebellum in Adaptation to Delayed Action Effects

“…A decrease in the amplitudes of M100 and M200 components (and their EEG counterparts N100 and P200 components) for self-generated tones is a very robust effect, reliably demonstrating the influences that actions can have on auditory processing [ 1 , 2 , 4 , 18 , 19 ]. In addition, many studies demonstrated a functional disassociation between the two components [ 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 ], which is also supported by our results showing different characteristics of both components over testing sessions in sham and real stimulation conditions. The M100 attenuation in the baseline session (pre-sham and pre-real) was localized in auditory cortex, which we interpret as a result of predictions from the forward model.…”

“…This explanation of M200 component is supported by other studies showing that the M200 amplitude (or P200 in EEG studies) increases when a stimulus cannot be predicted [ 29 ] and when a predicted stimulus is omitted [ 30 ] or violated [ 31 ]. This may also explain why, in EEG studies, N100 attenuation, but not P200 attenuation, was observed in the following two cases: (1) when a stimulus was followed by actions of an atypical effector, like the eye [ 19 ] or the foot [ 21 ], and (2) when a non-speech stimulus followed speech movement planning [ 22 ]. In summary, M100/N100 attenuation may be the result of predictions from forward models that act on low-level features of the stimulus.…”

Cortical source imaging of resting-state MEG with a high resolution atlas: An evaluation of methods

“…However, there may be cases where one solution is preferred over the other. One such case is when only a portion of the source space is to be reconstructed, for example placing a small number of 'virtual electrodes' at regions of interest (Engels et al, 2016;Hillebrand et al, 2016). wLCMV would be preferred in this case, as the beamformer solution at one dipole is not dependent on the rest of the source space (Van Veen et al, 1997).…”

Bioelectrical brain effects of one's own voice identification in pitch of voice auditory feedback

“…Taking into account studies suggesting that the vocal motor system can modulate auditory cortical processing (Behroozmand, et al, 2016; Behroozmand, et al, 2015; Chang, et al, 2013; Cogan, et al, 2014; Daliri & Max, 2016; Greenlee, et al, 2013; Jenson, Harkrider, Thornton, Bowers, & Saltuklaroglu, 2015; Sitek, et al, 2013) we hypothesized that during vocalization, SoA-related motor activity should alter functional characteristics of auditory perceptual neuronal networks. Specifically we hypothesized that there should be a difference between bioelectrical brain responses with and without the presence of SoA associated with vocalization.…”