The perils of learning to move while speaking: One-sided interference between speech and visuomotor adaptation

Lametti, Daniel R.; Quek, Marcus Y M; Prescott, Calum B; Brittain, John-Stuart; Watkins, Kate E.

doi:10.3758/s13423-020-01725-8

Cited by 22 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In their study, found that neither group reported explicit awareness of intentions to change their speech when repeatedly asked after each trial (with the exception of one PWNS participant). This accords with other evidence suggesting that speech adaptation to formant perturbations indeed only involves an implicit component (Lametti et al, 2020;Munhall et al, 2009). Finally, this study also looked at whether participants' perceptual targets for the spoken words were changed during the task, given evidence that speech motor learning can induce changes in the perception of speech sounds (Lametti et al, 2014;Shiller et al, 2009).…”

Section: Formant Perturbation Studiessupporting

confidence: 79%

The Role of Sensory Feedback in Developmental Stuttering: A Review

Bradshaw

Lametti

McGettigan

2021

Neurobiology of Language

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Developmental stuttering is a neurodevelopmental disorder that severely affects speech fluency. Multiple lines of evidence point to a role of sensory feedback in the disorder; this has led to a number of theories proposing different disruptions to the use of sensory feedback during speech motor control in people who stutter. The purpose of this review was to bring together evidence from studies using altered auditory feedback paradigms with people who stutter, in order to evaluate the predictions of these different theories. This review highlights converging evidence for particular patterns of differences in the responses of people who stutter to feedback perturbations. The implications for hypotheses on the nature of the disruption to sensorimotor control of speech in the disorder are discussed, with reference to neurocomputational models of speech control (predominantly, the DIVA model, Guenther et al., 2006; Tourville et al., 2008). While some consistent patterns are emerging from this evidence, it is clear that more work in this area is needed with developmental samples in particular, in order to tease apart differences related to symptom onset from those related to compensatory strategies that develop with experience of stuttering.

show abstract

Section: Formant Perturbation Studiessupporting

confidence: 79%

The Role of Sensory Feedback in Developmental Stuttering: A Review

Bradshaw

Lametti

McGettigan

2021

Neurobiology of Language

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In contrast to speech motor adaptation, which is largely, if not entirely, driven by implicit changes in motor system, visuomotor adaptation (e.g., reaching) is thought to comprise two dissociable learning components: an implicit process aiming to minimize sensory prediction errors and an explicit process aiming to maintain task goals ( Lametti et al., 2020 ; Mazzoni, 2006 ). These two processes can work in parallel and eventually drive the acquisition of more accurate motor plans.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Disruption of speech motor adaptation with repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation of the articulatory representation in primary motor cortex

Tang

McDaniel

Watkins

2021

Cortex

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When auditory feedback perturbation is introduced in a predictable way over a number of utterances, speakers learn to compensate by adjusting their own productions, a process known as sensorimotor adaptation. Despite multiple lines of evidence indicating the role of primary motor cortex (M1) in motor learning and memory, whether M1 causally contributes to sensorimotor adaptation in the speech domain remains unclear. Here, we aimed to assay whether temporary disruption of the articulatory representation in left M1 by repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) impairs speech adaptation. To induce sensorimotor adaptation, the frequencies of first formants (F1) were shifted up and played back to participants when they produced “head”, “bed”, and “dead” repeatedly (the learning phase). A low-frequency rTMS train (.6 Hz, subthreshold, 12 min) over either the tongue or the hand representation of M1 (between-subjects design) was applied before participants experienced altered auditory feedback in the learning phase. We found that the group who received rTMS over the hand representation showed the expected compensatory response for the upwards shift in F1 by significantly reducing F1 and increasing the second formant (F2) frequencies in their productions. In contrast, these expected compensatory changes in both F1 and F2 did not occur in the group that received rTMS over the tongue representation. Critically, rTMS (subthreshold) over the tongue representation did not affect vowel production, which was unchanged from baseline. These results provide direct evidence that the articulatory representation in left M1 causally contributes to sensorimotor learning in speech. Furthermore, these results also suggest that M1 is critical to the network supporting a more global adaptation that aims to move the altered speech production closer to a learnt pattern of speech production used to produce another vowel.

show abstract

“…Given that both the stuttering group and the nonstuttering group did, in fact, partially adapt to the perturbation (although to a different extent for the two groups), these self-reports of no intent to change confirm that speech auditory-motor adaptation occurs without implementing an explicit strategy to compensate for the perturbation. This finding is fully in agreement with other studies demonstrating that (a) there is no difference in adaptation to pitch-shifted auditory feedback when participants are asked to compensate vs. ignore the feedback (Keough et al, 2013), (b) there is also no difference in adaptation to formant-shifted auditory feedback when participants are asked to compensate, ignore the feedback, or explicitly avoid compensating (Munhall et al, 2009), and (c) the explicit component of reach visuomotor adaptation is diminished by simultaneous speech auditory-motor adaptation but speech auditory-motor adaptation is not affected at all by the simultaneous visuomotor task (Lametti et al, 2020).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Based on anecdotal information from post-experiment interviews, it has also been reported that none of the participants were aware of making any changes in their speech in response to a formant-shit perturbation (Houde & Jordan, 2002). Lastly, the observation that reach visuomotor adaptation (and selectively its explicit component) was diminished by simultaneous speech auditory-motor adaptation whereas the tasks did not interfere in the opposite direction has also been interpreted as suggesting that speech auditory-motor adaptation may lack an explicit component (Lametti, Quek, Prescott, Brittain, & Watkins, 2020).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Speech auditory-motor adaptation lacks an explicit component: reduced adaptation in adults who stutter reflects limitations in implicit sensorimotor learning

Kim

Max

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The neural mechanisms underlying stuttering remain poorly understood. A large body of work has focused on sensorimotor integration difficulties in individuals who stutter, including recently the capacity for sensorimotor learning. Typically, sensorimotor learning is assessed with adaptation paradigms in which one or more sensory feedback modalities are experimentally perturbed in real-time. Our own previous work on speech with perturbed auditory feedback revealed substantial auditory-motor learning limitations in both children and adults who stutter (AWS). It remains unknown, however, which sub-processes of sensorimotor learning are impaired. Indeed, new insights from research on upper-limb motor control indicate that sensorimotor learning involves at least two distinct components: (a) an explicit component that includes intentional strategy use and presumably is driven by target error, and (b) an implicit component that updates an internal model without awareness of the learner and presumably is driven by sensory prediction error. Here, we attempted to dissociate these components for speech auditory-motor learning in AWS vs. adults who do not stutter (AWNS). Our formant-shift auditory-motor adaptation results replicated previous findings that such sensorimotor learning is limited in AWS. Novel findings are that neither control nor stuttering participants reported any awareness of changing their productions in response to the auditory perturbation, and that neither group showed systematic drift in auditory target judgments made throughout the adaptation task. These results indicate that speech auditory-motor adaptation relies exclusively on implicit learning processes. Thus, limited adaptation in AWS reflects poor implicit sensorimotor learning.

show abstract

The perils of learning to move while speaking: One-sided interference between speech and visuomotor adaptation

Cited by 22 publications

References 38 publications

The Role of Sensory Feedback in Developmental Stuttering: A Review

The Role of Sensory Feedback in Developmental Stuttering: A Review

Disruption of speech motor adaptation with repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation of the articulatory representation in primary motor cortex

Speech auditory-motor adaptation lacks an explicit component: reduced adaptation in adults who stutter reflects limitations in implicit sensorimotor learning

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About