Speech disruption during delayed auditory feedback with simultaneous visual feedback

Jones, Jeffery A.; Striemer, Danielle

doi:10.1121/1.2772402

Cited by 12 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Delayed auditory feedback can result in an increase in speech errors and breakdown in speech fluency (e.g., Jones & Striemer, 2007; Corey & Cuddapah, 2008). The findings from the present study support such earlier reports of increase in errors and disfluencies under delayed auditory feedback.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of Delayed Auditory Feedback on Speech Kinematics in Fluent Speakers

Sasisekaran

2012

Percept Mot Skills

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary The effects of delayed auditory feedback on behavioral responses and speech kinematics were investigated. Participants were 10 males (M age = 22.2, SD = 3.7) and 10 females (M age = 20.5, SD = 2.2). Participants were required to repeat short (six-syllable) and longer (11-syllable) non-words in a reading task. Speech errors, lip movement variability, and movement duration of labial trajectories under delayed feedback were compared to effects under gated speech feedback and a control or synchronous auditory feedback condition. Repeated measures analysis indicated lower percent of correct productions, higher variability and slower duration of lip movements in the delayed feedback condition compared to the gated feedback and control conditions. Implications for auditory feedback of movement control in continuous speech and for theories of delayed auditory feedback that attribute a role to movements are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of Delayed Auditory Feedback on Speech Kinematics in Fluent Speakers

Sasisekaran

2012

Percept Mot Skills

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Post-lingually deaf individuals display alterations to both segmental and suprasegmental aspects of speech, such as dysfluencies and reduced speech rate (Cowie et al , 1982; Lane and Webster, 1991; Schenk et al , 2003). Studies that manipulate auditory or somatosensory feedback during speech indicate that speakers also modify their speech according to reafferent information (MacKay, 1970; Fabbro and Daro, 1995; Hashimoto and Sakai, 2003; Jones and Striemer, 2007), suggesting at least some degree of influence of sensory feedback during speech. By quantifying behavioural and neural responses to manipulations of sensory feedback during speech motor control, these studies have revealed some of the mechanisms involved in the sensory control of speech (Yates, 1963; Larson et al , 2000; Nasir and Ostry, 2009; Patel et al , 2011; Kort et al , 2014).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Group and individual variability in speech production networks during delayed auditory feedback

Agnew

McGettigan

Banks

et al. 2018

The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Altering reafferent sensory information can have a profound effect on motor output. Introducing a short delay [delayed auditory feedback (DAF)] during speech production results in modulations of voice and loudness, and produces a range of speech dysfluencies. The ability of speakers to resist the effects of delayed feedback is variable yet it is unclear what neural processes underlie differences in susceptibility to DAF. Here, susceptibility to DAF is investigated by looking at the neural basis of within and between subject changes in speech fluency under 50 and 200 ms delay conditions. Using functional magnetic resonance imaging, networks involved in producing speech under two levels of DAF were identified, lying largely within networks active during normal speech production. Independent of condition, fluency ratings were associated with midbrain activity corresponding to periaqueductal grey matter. Across subject variability in ability to produce normal sounding speech under a 200 ms delay was associated with activity in ventral sensorimotor cortices, whereas ability to produce normal sounding speech under a 50 ms delay was associated with left inferior frontal gyrus activity. These data indicate whilst overlapping cortical mechanisms are engaged for speaking under different delay conditions, susceptibility to different temporal delays in speech feedback may involve different processes.

show abstract

“…DAF has been proven a powerful method for reducing disfluencies in people who stutter (e.g., Armson & Stuart, 1998;Kalinowski, Armson, Roland-Mieszkowski, Stuart, & Gracco, 1993;Kalinowski, Stuart, Sark, & Armson, 1996;Sparks, Grant, Millay, Walker-Baston, & Hynan, 2002;Van Borsel, Reunes, & Van den Bergh, 2003). In contrast, it typically induces disfluencies and decreases speech rate in normally fluent people but with apparent individual variation (Fabbro & Darro, 1995;Jones & Striemer, 2007;Lee, 1950aLee, , 1950bMacKay, 1970;Stephen & Haggard, 1980;Van Borsel, Sunaert, & Engelen, 2005). These opposing effects of fluency induction in people who stutter and disfluencies in normally fluent adults demonstrate the potency of this manipulation, especially because fluent speakers do not show significant disfluencies under other types of altered auditory feedback.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%