Vocalization-induced enhancement of the auditory cortex responsiveness during voice F0 feedback perturbation

Abstract

Objective The present study investigated whether self-vocalization enhances auditory neural responsiveness to voice pitch feedback perturbation and how this vocalization-induced neural modulation can be affected by the extent of the feedback deviation. Method Event related potentials (ERPs) were recorded in 15 subjects in response to +100, +200 and +500 cents pitch-shifted voice auditory feedback during active vocalization and passive listening to the playback of the self-produced vocalizations. Result The amplitude of the evoked P1 (latency: 73.51 ms) and P2 (latency: 199.55 ms) ERP components in response to feedback perturbation were significantly larger during vocalization than listening. The difference between P2 peak amplitudes during vocalization vs. listening was shown to be significantly larger for +100 than +500 cents stimulus. Conclusion Results indicate that the human auditory cortex is more responsive to voice F0 feedback perturbations during vocalization than passive listening. Greater vocalization-induced enhancement of the auditory responsiveness to smaller feedback perturbations may imply that the audio-vocal system detects and corrects for errors in vocal production that closely match the expected vocal output. Significance Findings of this study support previous suggestions regarding the enhanced auditory sensitivity to feedback alterations during self-vocalization, which may serve the purpose of feedback-based monitoring of one’s voice.

Neural Correlates of the Lombard Effect in Primate Auditory Cortex

“…The subsequent vocal compensation for the change in vocal feedback resulted in a correction of the auditory cortex neural responses back toward the normal vocalization-related neural activity. This suggests that auditory cortex may play a role in vocal feedback monitoring as suggested by earlier studies (Houde et al, 2002;Eliades and Wang, 2008a;Tourville et al, 2008;Behroozmand et al, 2009). This observation is empirically important and conceptually interesting because it reflects the expected events underlying feedback-dependent vocal control.…”

“…We previously predicted such a role of vocalization-induced suppression based upon neural activities during frequency-shifted changes in vocal feedback (Eliades and Wang, 2008a). Recent evidence from human studies confirms this increase in auditory cortex sensitivity during speech (Behroozmand et al, 2009;Greenlee et al, 2011). It has also been suggested that suppression occurs when there is a match between expected and perceived feedback, and that the increased activity during masking reflects a mismatch due to absence or reduced feedback (Houde et al, 2002).…”

Opposing and following vocal responses to pitch-shifted auditory feedback: Evidence for different mechanisms of voice pitch control

“…The first experiment was done on vocal responses from a previously published study involving electro-encephalography (EEG) recordings in response to brief (200 ms) pitch-shift stimuli (PSS) in the middle of vocalization. The PSS had a predictable direction (all upward), but their magnitudes were randomized at þ100, þ200, and þ500 cents (Behroozmand et al, 2009). In that study, nearly 100 trials were recorded for each PSS magnitude (þ100, þ200, þ500 cents), which allowed the examination of many more trials than what has been reported previously.…”

“…In that study, nearly 100 trials were recorded for each PSS magnitude (þ100, þ200, þ500 cents), which allowed the examination of many more trials than what has been reported previously. A shortcoming of the study of Behroozmand et al (2009) was that the anticipation of the predictable stimulus direction by the subjects may have influenced their vocal responses to the stimuli. Therefore, a second experiment was carried out that consisted of three separate blocks of trials in which the predictability of the stimulus direction was varied.…”

The effects of stimulus complexity on the preattentive processing of self-generated and nonself voices: An ERP study

“…Therefore, this system allows for the differentiation between self-generated and external stimulation Ford & Mathalon, 2004;Ford et al, 2007;Heinks-Maldonado et al, 2005;HeinksMaldonado et al, 2007). On the contrary, if the voice feedback and the predicted sensory consequences do not match, an error signal is generated, and hence auditory cortical suppression is reduced (i.e., auditory activity is increased; Behroozmand, Karvelis, Liu, & Larson, 2009;Eliades & Wang, 2008;Heinks-Maldonado et al, 2005;Heinks-Maldonado et al, 2007;Sitek et al, 2013). Complementing these studies, recent evidence (Tian & Poeppel, 2013 has shown that the operation of the internal feedforward system is not an Bartifact^of overt vocal production, since it operates during articulation imagery.…”