Multiple instances of vocal sensorimotor adaptation to frequency-altered feedback within a single experimental session

Abstract

Vocal sensory-motor adaptation is typically studied by introducing a prolonged change in auditory feedback. While it may be preferable to perform multiple blocks of adaptation within a single experiment, it is possible that a carry-over effect from previous blocks of adaptation may affect the results of subsequent blocks. Speakers were asked to vocalize an /a/ sound and match a target note during ten adaptation blocks. Each block represented a unique combination of target note and shift direction. The adaptation response was found to be similar for all blocks, indicating that there were no carry-over effects from previous blocks of adaptation.

A Simple 3-Parameter Model for Examining Adaptation in Speech and Voice Production

“…Since the first application of the sensorimotor adaptation paradigm to speech, a number of adaptation studies have supported the original findings for formant perturbations (e.g., Purcell and Munhall, 2006;Villacorta et al, 2007) as well as several additional acoustic manipulations, including shifting the center of spectral energy of fricatives (Shiller et al, 2007(Shiller et al, , 2009 and perturbing fundamental frequency (f o , the acoustic correlate of pitch) during sustained phonation (Jones and Munhall, 2000;Hawco and Jones, 2010). The findings have also been generalized to perturbations of pitch and formant frequencies in Mandarin, a tonal language Munhall, 2002, 2005;Cai et al, 2010), and to sentence-level stimuli with formants of multiple vowels perturbed within an utterance (Lametti et al, 2018).…”

Do Not Cut Off Your Tail: A Mega-Analysis of Responses to Auditory Perturbation Experiments

“…One comparable study that also used a long hold phase (180 trials) without a ramp phase also reported a large proportion of nonresponders (14/30 participants; Scheerer, Tumber, & Jones, 2016), suggesting these factors may influence participant response in adaptive f o studies. However, other prior studies have shown significant adaptation using paradigms without a ramp phase (e.g., Hawco & Jones, 2010) or with comparably long hold phases (e.g., Behroozmand & Sangtian, 2018). Although our data preclude a full analysis of the impact of stimulus type (sustained vowel vs. word) on the likelihood of a following response, our data set included sufficient data from both stimulus types to examine this question in reflexive pitch studies.…”

Pitch Shifting With the Commercially Available Eventide Eclipse: Intended and Unintended Changes to the Speech Signal

“…Liu, Chen, Jones, Huang, & Liu, 2011) and the earlier Eventide H3000 series (e.g., Burnett et al, 1998;Hain et al, 2000;Jones & Munhall, 2005;Larson et al, 2000;Sivasankar, Bauer, Babu, & Larson, 2005). Another popular hardware used by researchers (e.g., Feng, Xiao, Yan, & Max, 2018;Hawco & Jones, 2010;Jones & Keough, 2008;Mollaei, Shiller, Baum, & Gracco, 2016;Tumber, Scheerer, & Jones, 2014;Zarate & Zatorre, 2008) is the Voice One, made by TC Helicon. The Voice One's pitchshifting algorithm includes formant correction, thereby avoiding issues related to unintended formant frequency changes during pitch-shifting tasks.…”